SCDOT COMMISSION ITINERARY Commission Christmas Dinner December 5, 2018 Commission Meeting December 6, 2018

Transcription

1 SCDOT COMMISSION ITINERARY Commission Christmas Dinner December 5, 2018 Commission Meeting December 6, 2018 Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Event: Commission Christmas Dinner Time: 6:00 PM/ seating at 6:30PM Place: California Dreaming 401 Main Street Columbia, SC Attire: Casual Members: All Commissioners and Guests Thursday, December 6, 2018 Event: Commission Meeting (estimated time 2 hours) Time: 9:00 AM Place: 5 th Floor Auditorium, Headquarters Commission Chairman: Ben Davis, Chairman Members: All Commissioners Staff: Participating DOT Personnel 1

2 2

3 Commission Meeting Agenda Thursday, December 6, 2018 SCDOT 5 th Floor Auditorium Commission Members: Dr. Ben H. Davis, Jr., Chairman Robert D. Robbins, Vice-Chairman Kristen E. Blanchard, At-Large Commissioner David E. Branham, Sr., Commissioner John H. Burriss, Sr., Commissioner Tony K. Cox, Commissioner J. Barnwell Fishburne, Commissioner James T. McLawhorn, Jr., At-Large Commissioner Woodrow W. Willard, Commissioner I. Call to Order Chairman Ben Davis II. Roll Call Chairman Ben Davis III. Approval of December 6, 2018, Agenda (Action Required) Chairman Ben Davis IV. Prayer Commissioner Barnwell Fishburne V. Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner J. T. McLawhorn VI. VII. Approval of October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions (Action Required) Approval of October 18, 2018, Audit Committee Meeting Minutes and Actions (Action Required) Chairman Ben Davis Chairman Ben Davis VIII. Public Comment Chairman Ben Davis IX. Resolution Recognizing Deputy Secretary Keys Chairman Ben Davis (Action Required) X. Revisions to SC Code of Regulations Chief Counsel Linda McDonald (Action Required) XI. 10-Year District Review (Action Required) Chief Engineer Andy Leaphart XII. Recommendations for Review: Chief Procurement Officer Darrin Player A. For Approval (Action Required) and Director Brent Rewis B. For Ratification (Action Required) C. Finding (Action Required) D. Cuff Item (Action May Be Required) XIII. For Information Only (No Action Required) Chief Procurement Officer Darrin Player XIV. Financial Update (No Action Required) Chief Financial Officer Kace Smith XV. Old Business Chairman Ben Davis XVI. Secretary of Transportation Comments Secretary Christy Hall XVII. Commissioner Comments Commissioners XVIII. Adjourn (Action Required) Chairman Ben Davis Post Office Box Park Street, Room 308 An Equal Opportunity Columbia, SC Affirmative Action Employer Fax 855-GO-SCDOT ( ) 3

4 4

5 Commission Members: Dr. Ben H. Davis, Jr., Chairman Robert D. Robbins, Vice-Chairman Kristen E. Blanchard, Commissioner David E. Branham, Sr., Commissioner John H. Burriss, Sr., Commissioner Tony K. Cox, Commissioner J. Barnwell Fishburne, Commissioner James T. McLawhorn, Jr., Commissioner Woodrow W. Willard, Commissioner DRAFT Commission Minutes and Actions South Carolina Department of Transportation Commission Meeting October 18, 2018 The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) Commission held its Commission Meeting on October 18, 2018, immediately following the 9:00 AM Audit Committee Meeting. The Commission Meeting took place at the 5 th Floor Auditorium, SCDOT Headquarters, 955 Park Street, Columbia, S.C., In compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, the news media was advised in advance in writing of the time, date, and place of this meeting. 5

6 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 2 COMMISSION MINUTES AND ACTIONS South Carolina Department of Transportation Commission Meeting October 18, 2018 Section Table of Contents Page Section 1 Call to Order 3 Section 2 Roll Call 3-4 Section 3 October 18, 2018, Agenda, Approved 4 Section 4 September 27, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions, Approved 4 Section 5 Public Comments, No Action 4 Section 6 AASHTO Awards, No Action 5 Section 7 Resolutions: SCDOT Staff Response/Recovery Efforts, Adopted 5 Former Commissioner Samuel B. Glover, Adopted 5 Former Commissioner John N. Hardee, Adopted 5 Section 8 Executive Session, No Action 6 Section 9 Resolution: Mark Clark Expressway Extension, Adopted 6 Section 10 Audit Committee Report, No Action 6 Section 11 TAMP Performance Update, Approved 7-8 Section 12 Rural Interstate Freight Network Mobility Improvements Program, Approved 7-8 Section 13 Hurricane Florence Response and Recovery, No Action 8 Section 14 Recommendations: For Approval, Approved 9 For Ratifications, Ratified 9 Finding, No Action 9 Cuff Item, No Action 9 6

7 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 3 Section 15 For Information Only, No Action 9 Section 16 Financial Update, No Action 9 Section 17 Old Business, None 9 Section 18 Secretary of Transportation Comments, No Action 9 (Handout) Section 19 Commissioner Comments, No Action 10 Section 20 Adjourn, Action 10 Section 1: Call to Order No Action The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ben Davis on October 18, 2018, at 10:25 AM. Section 2: Roll Call Action Chairman Davis called the roll of the Commissioners. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kristen Blanchard, At-Large Commissioner Gene Branham, Commissioner for the Fifth Congressional District John H. Burriss, Commissioner for the Second Congressional District Tony Cox, Commissioner for the Seventh Congressional District Ben Davis, Chairman and Commissioner for the Third Congressional District Barnwell Fishburne, Commissioner for the Sixth Congressional District J. T. McLawhorn, At-Large Commissioner Robby Robbins, Vice-Chairman and Commissioner for the First Congressional District Woody Willard, Commissioner for the Fourth Congressional District The Chairman declared that a quorum was present. Also present at the meeting: Christy A. Hall, Secretary of Transportation Leland Colvin, Deputy Secretary for Engineering Jim Feda, Deputy Secretary for Intermodal Planning Brian Keys, Deputy Secretary for Finance and Administration Randall Young, Chief Engineer for Project Delivery Andy Leaphart, Chief Engineer for Operations Brent Rewis, Director of Planning Kace Smith, Chief Financial Officer Darrin Player, Chief Procurement Officer Linda McDonald Chief Counsel Amanda Taylor, Assistant Chief Counsel 7

8 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 4 Also present at the meeting (con t): Chip Carothers, Assistant Chief Counsel Allen Hutto, Government Relations Officer Greg Davis, Director of Minority and Small Business Affairs Karl McCottry, Director of Human Resources Doug Frate, Director of Intermodal & Freight Programs Rob Perry, Director of Traffic Engineering John Boylston, Director of Preconstruction Claude Ipock, Director of Construction David Cook, Director of Maintenance Wayne Sams, Director of Internal Audit Services Amanda Newell, Internal Audit Supervisor Pete Poore, Director of Communications Rob Thompson, Chief Photographer Tina Kennedy, Events Coordinator Bruce McLamore, Special Assistant Emily Lawton, Federal Highway Administrator (FHWA) Section 3: Agenda Approved Chairman Davis asked for a motion to approve the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Agenda. A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Robbins and seconded by Commissioner Cox. The motion passed unanimously. A copy of the agenda is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. Section 4: Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions Approved Chairman Davis called for a motion to approve the September 27, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. A motion was made by Commissioner Willard and seconded by Commissioner Fishburne. The motion was passed unanimously. A copy of the September 27, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. Section 5: Public Comment No Action There were two public comments: 1) Mr. Will Hutchins of LCI-Lineberger is looking for answers for SCDOT work that would be coming in the future. Mr. Hutchins said they have equipment but no jobs thus far. SOT Hall told Mr. Hutchins we would be happy to speak with company representatives. 2) Mr. Larry Brown of Richland County spoke next. He said he was trying to get a settlement from Weston Construction Services for damage to his car when he hit an object on I-77 where they were doing work on the project. Linda McDonald said she had spoken with Mr. Brown and he understood that DOT cannot force a contractor pay damages to him, however, she would follow up on the issue. A copy of the Public Comment Sign-In sheet is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. 8

9 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 5 Section 6: AASHTO Awards No Action SOT Hall proudly introduced the three 2018 AASHTO national awards won by SCDOT under the The President s Transportation Awards division. There were eight sub-categories and SCDOT won three of the eight at a state level: 1) Highway Traffic Safety Rural Road Safety Program, South Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT employees recognized = Brett Harrelson and Rob Perry) 2) Administration Development of Menu of Funding Options Team, South Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT employees recognized for funding options for the Legislature = Allen Hutto, Jim Feda, Brian Keys, and Leland Colvin) 3) Performance Excellence Masters of Disaster, South Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT employees recognized for recycling sand on the beach after Hurricane Irma = Kirk Richards and Tim Henderson) To view the AASHTO Award Winners, go to: (Once on the web page, click on the blue lettering to view each video) Section 7: Resolutions Honoring Staff and Former Commissioners Action 1) A Resolution was presented commending and expressing appreciation to SCDOT for outstanding emergency response and recovery before, during, and after multiple natural disasters. DEAs from each District were present to accept the Resolutions in addition to Chief Engineers, Deputy Secretaries, Call Center Director Ryan Cole, the Traffic Engineering Team, Kace Smith from the Finance Team, Darrin Player from the Procurement Team, Director of Maintenance David Cook, Director of Preconstruction John Boylston, Pete Poore of the Communications Team, Events Coordinator Tina Kennedy, Director of Construction Claude Ipock, and FHWA Administrator Emily Lawton. Commissioner Cox made a motion to adopt the Resolution and Commissioner Branham seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. A copy of the Resolution is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. 2) A Resolution honoring former SCDOT Commissioner Samuel B. Glover for his service as Commissioner of the SCDOT representing the 6 th Congressional District was read. A motion was made by Commissioner Fishburne to adopt the Resolution as read and seconded by Commissioner Branham. The motion passed unanimously. A copy of the Resolution is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. 3) To honor former SCDOT Commissioner John N. Hardee, a Resolution was read commending him for his service as Commissioner of the SCDOT representing the 2 nd Congressional District. A motion was made by Commissioner Cox to adopt the Resolution as read and seconded by Vice-Chairman Robbins. The motion passed unanimously. A copy of the Resolution is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. 9

10 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 6 Section 8: Executive Session No Action A motion was made by Commissioner Cox and seconded by Commissioner Fishburne that the Commission go into Executive Session pursuant to S.C. Code Section (a)(2) for the purpose of receiving legal advice regarding contractual arrangements. It passed unanimously. The recorders were turned off at 11:10 AM and the following DOT personnel were asked to remain in the room while all others were asked to leave: Secretary of Transportation Christy Hall, Chief Legal Counsel Linda McDonald, Assistant Chief Counsel Amanda Taylor, Assistant Chief Counsel Chip Carothers, Deputy Secretary Leland Colvin, Deputy Secretary Jim Feda, and Deputy Secretary Brian Keys. A motion was made by Commissioner Cox and seconded by Commissioner Fishburne that the Commission come out of Executive Session and back into their regularly scheduled meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Once the Executive Session ended and the regular Commission meeting commenced at 11:29 AM, Chairman Davis stated to all those who returned to the Commission room that no votes were taken in Executive Session, nor did the Commission commit itself to a course of action. Section 9: Resolution Mark Clark Extension Action Vice-Chairman Robby Robbins moved for the adoption of a Resolution regarding the I-526 Mark Clark Expressway Extension project in Charleston County. The final paragraph of the Resolution states: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the South Carolina Department of Transportation Commission in meeting duly assembled on the 18th day of October 2018, that in accordance with contractual obligations, the Commission reaffirms the role of SCDOT in this SCTIB and Charleston County funded project as the project administrator and upon completion of construction of the project in accordance with SCDOT standards and specifications and fulfillment of the usual mileage cap provisions, that the project would be proposed for acceptance into the State Highway System. The motion to adopt the Resolution as read was seconded by Commissioner Fishburne. Chairman Davis called for any discussion and Commission Cox noted that for public information no SCDOT funds were used for the project; the money is strictly SCTIB and Charleston County funds. Also, Vice-Chairman Robbins said that SCDOT is only the project administrator. A vote was taken and the Resolution was adopted unanimously. A copy of the Resolution is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. Section 10: Audit Committee Report Out No Action The Audit Committee Report Out from its October 18, 2018, meeting was given by Audit Committee Chairman Robby Robbins. He said that the Audit Committee received a report from Wayne Sams, Director of Internal Audit Services, on the status of internal audit engagements as of September 30, No Actions were taken. Additionally, an internal audit report on an efficiency assessment of the hiring process was received from Amanda Newell, Internal Audit Supervisor. The report included eight observations. No action was taken. 10

11 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 7 Section 11: TAMP Performance Update Action Deputy Secretary Jim Feda gave a presentation on the Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). This plan is an accountability tool for SCDOT to utilize to help tie investment levels to expected results. The TAMP establishes: baseline conditions, 10-year performance targets, and average annual investment levels within the programs. Previously the Commission approved performance measure categories of safety targets and assets targets. At this meeting, Deputy Feda was asking the Commission to review and approve the addition of TAMP mobility performance metrics, targets, and annual funding levels. The mobility performance measure category includes traffic congestion, on-road mobile source emissions, freight movements, and performance of interstate and non-interstate National Highway System (NHS) systems. There were two additional handouts titled Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) Performance Targets (one updated April 19, 2018, and the other updated October 18, 2018). A copy of the presentation and handouts are included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. At the recommendation of Commissioner Blanchard, Deputy Feda went directly into his presentation on the rural interstate freight network mobility improvement program. Section 12: Rural Interstate Freight Network Mobility Improvement Program Action In his presentation, Deputy Feda said that of the $114M annually returning to SCDOT after the tax credit sunsets, $80M would be recommended for use to increase mobility along the freight network with a focus on rural interstate widenings to target high-density truck freight corridors. Deputy Feda pointed out that trucking is the primary mode of freight travel. That being said, there is projected to be a 25 percent increase in tonnage from 2011 to 2016 and a 60 percent increase in tonnage expected by Eighteen rural freight corridors have been identified and five proposed projects with rankings from one to five were presented with the understanding that when these five projects are finished, the next projects will be submitted for approval using the most current information. There was a handout spreadsheet titled Rural Interstate Freight Network Mobility Improvement Program as of October A copy of the presentation and handout are included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. Commissioner Blanchard said that she appreciates the forefront thinking of SOT Hall and her staff on this issue. She said she has driven many of these roads and truck traffic is always a concern, however, when she looks at the different buckets and thinks about priorities, while not diminishing the importance of this program, she still has a big concern about the safety of bridges and she would prefer to see the money go to some of the bridges and roads that need to be fixed before money goes to the freight program. At the close of Deputy Feda s Rural Interstate Freight Network Mobility Improvement Program presentation, Chairman Davis read the following Motion for Commission consideration concerning the previously presented TAMP Performance Update: 11

12 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 8 Motion: The Commission approves the addition of the mobility performance metrics, targets, and average annual funding levels and directs that they be incorporated into our state Transportation Asset Management Plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Willard to accept the TAMP Performance Update as read by Chairman Davis. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Burriss. A vote was taken and there were eight Aye votes and one Nay vote (Comm. Blanchard). The motion was approved by a majority of votes. Next, the following Motion was read for Commission consideration by Chairman Davis concerning the Rural Interstate Freight Network Mobility Improvement Program: Motion: In accordance with the Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) and the 10-year plan for rebuilding South Carolina s roads, the Commission approves the Secretary s recommended ranked list of corridors for inclusion in the Rural Interstate Freight Network Mobility Improvement Program. This interstate widening program specifically targets the rural sections of South Carolina s interstate system with a focus on freight mobility and is in addition to the previously approved interstate widening projects planned for the urban areas of the state. The proposed ranked list of corridors shall be open for public comment for a period of 21 days. Any substantive comments received during the comment period will be presented to the Commission for its consideration. Following the public comment period, the Secretary is directed to begin the preliminary work necessary in order to be prepared to advance projects within this program once significant funding becomes available as the tax credits sunset. A motion was made by Vice-Chairman Robbins for approval of the motion as read by Chairman Davis and seconded by Commissioner Fishburne. Commissioner Blanchard said that, again, she did not have an issue with the entire motion but it was the funding from the sunset tax credit that she felt needs to go to funding bridges and, therefore, for that reason, she would be voting no on these motions (TAMP Performance and Rural Interstate Freight Network Mobility Improvement Program). The vote for approval of the motion was taken with eight Aye votes and one Nay vote (Commissioner Blanchard). The motion was approved by a majority of votes. Section 13: Hurricane Florence Response and Recovery No Action A presentation by Deputy Secretary Leland Colvin highlighted SCDOT s effective response to Hurricane Florence. Deputy Colvin said that the Agency takes a preparedness approach to emergency weather situations by honing and utilizing these five criteria: planning, preparing/practicing, responding, recovering, and restoring. Each of these five phases of preparing for emergency weather situations, and in this case Hurricane Florence, proved to be vital in the successful execution of the overall response and recovery action taken by SCDOT, from the establishment of emergency procurement procedures to debris removal and restoration efforts. A copy of the presentation is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. 12

13 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 9 Section 14: Recommendations Action Deputy Secretary for Finance and Administration Brian Keys and Director of Planning Brent Rewis reviewed all recommendations: A. Approval Director Rewis reviewed items for approval and a motion was made by Commissioner Branham to approve pages as presented by staff. There was a second by Commissioner Cox. The Motion passed unanimously. Copies of the recommendations for approval are included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. B. Ratification Deputy Keys presented the items for ratification on pages A motion to ratify was entertained by Chairman Davis. The motion was made by Commissioner Burriss and seconded by Vice-Chairman Robbins for ratification as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. Copies of the ratifications are included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. C. Finding There were no findings. D. Cuff Items There were no cuff items. Section15: For Information Only No Action Deputy Secretary Brian Keys reviewed all For Information Only items. These approvals on pages were made previously by Secretary Hall and supplied to the Commission for information only. No action was needed. Copies of the For Information Only items are included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. Section 16: Financial Update No Action Chief Financial Officer Kace Smith reported on: SFY revenue all funding sources, SFY expenditures by program, YTD August SFY expenditures by program, open commitments, construction program excluding emergency work, cash balances & 3-year projection, 4491 Infrastructure Maintenance Trust Fund, October 2015 storm recovery update, 2016 Hurricane Matthew recovery update, and 2017 Hurricane Irma recovery update. Also included as handouts were additional SFY revenue component: all funding sources, SFY revenue component: detailed information, and Infrastructure Maintenance Trust Fund state fiscal year 2019 year to date statement of receipts and disbursements as of August 31, Copies of the presentation and additional handouts are included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. Section 17: Old Business No Action There was no old business to discuss. Section 18: Secretary of Transportation Comments No Action SOT Hall said that she had previous, numerous occasions to provide information during the meeting today and that she had nothing more to add at this time. The Secretary of Transportation Monthly Report October 2018 was handed out to all Commissioners for their information. A copy of the monthly report is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. 13

14 Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions October 18, 2018 Page 10 Section 19: Commissioner Comments No Action Chairman Davis reminded everyone that the next meeting will combine November and December into one meeting that will take place on Thursday, December 6, 2018, in Columbia at SCDOT Headquarters. Section 20: Adjournment Approved Chairman Davis asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was made by Commissioner McLawhorn and seconded by Commissioner Burriss. It was approved unanimously. Chairman Davis declared the meeting adjourned at 1:20 PM. Minutes Approved on December Dr. Ben H. Davis, Jr., Chairman 14

15 Committee Members: Robert D. Robbins, Chairman David E. Branham, Sr., Commissioner John H. Burriss, Sr., Commissioner Tony K. Cox, Commissioner J. Barnwell Fishburne, Commissioner DRAFT Audit Committee Minutes and Actions SC Department of Transportation October 18, 2018 The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) Commission Audit Committee held its meeting in the 5 th Floor Auditorium of SCDOT Headquarters, 955 Park Street, Columbia, S.C., on October 18, 2018, at 9:00 AM. In compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, the news media was advised in advance in writing of the time, date, and place of this meeting. 15

16 Audit Committee Minutes October 18, 2018 Page 2 COMMISSION AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AND ACTIONS S C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION October 18, 2018 Section Table of Contents Page Section 1 Call to Order 2 Section 2 Roll Call 2-3 Section 3 Approval of Agenda, Approved 3 Section 4 Quarterly Status Report, No Action Required 3 Section 5 Hiring Process Efficiently Assessment, No Action Required 3 Section 6 Old Business, No Action Required 3 Section 7 Adjournment, Approved 3 Section 1: Call to Order No Action The meeting was called to order by Committee Chairman Robby Robbins on October 18, 2018, at 9:00 AM. Section 2: Roll Call Action Chairman Robbins called the roll of the Audit Committee Members and those present were: Gene Branham, Commissioner for the Fifth Congressional District John Burriss, Commissioner for the Second Congressional District Tony Cox, Commissioner for the Seventh Congressional District Barnwell Fishburne, Commissioner for the Sixth Congressional District Robby Robbins, Committee Chairman and Commissioner for the First Congressional District The Chairman declared that a quorum was present. Other Commissioners present were: Kristen Blanchard, At-Large Commissioner Ben Davis, Commissioner for the Third Congressional District J. T. McLawhorn, At-Large Commissioner Woody Willard, Commissioner for the Fourth Congressional District 16

17 Audit Committee Minutes October 18, 2018 Page 3 Also present at the meeting were: Christy A. Hall, Secretary of Transportation Leland Colvin, Deputy Secretary for Engineering Jim Feda, Deputy Secretary for Intermodal Planning Brian Keys, Deputy Secretary for Finance and Administration Wayne Sams, Director of Internal Audit Services Amanda Newell, Internal Audit Supervisor Emily Lawton, Federal Highway Administrator (FHWA) Section 3: Agenda Approved Chairman Robbins asked for a motion to approve the October 18, 2018, Audit Committee Meeting Agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Cox and seconded by Commissioner Branham. The motion passed unanimously. A copy of the agenda is included in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. Section 4: Quarterly Status Report No Action Director of Internal Audit Services Wayne Sams presented a report on the status of internal audit engagements as of September 30, Director Sams noted that status reports are currently on-going. No actions were taken. The Quarterly Status Report presentation can be found in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Actions. Section 5: Hiring Process Efficiency Assessment No Action A report was given by Director Sams and Amanda Newell, Internal Audit Supervisor, on an efficiency assessment of the hiring process. The report included eight observations. It was reported that input from staff around the state indicated that it takes a long time to be hired for a DOT job. Subsequent organizational changes have helped to cut hire time for employment from 43 days to just 26 days. For reference purposes, the entire report titled 2018 Efficiency Assessment SCDOT Hiring Process was included in Commission Notebooks. No action was taken. The presentation and hiring report can be found in the October 18, 2018, Commission Meeting Minutes and Action. Section 6: Old Business No Action Chairman Robbins asked if there was any old business. There was none. Section 7: Adjourn Action There was a motion made by Commissioner Fishburne and seconded by Commissioner Burriss that the Audit Committee adjourn. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:09 AM. Approved on December 6, 2018 Robert D. Robbins, Audit Committee Chairman 17

18 18

19 Revisions to S.C. Code of Regulations Transportation Project Prioritization At the Commission s July 26, 2018 meeting, the Commission authorized the staff to proceed with the regulatory process necessary to revise the SCDOT Transportation Project Prioritization regulations to: 1) Change the definition of the State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP ) to include state funded projects. Currently, the regulations define the STIP to include only federally funded projects. 2) Eliminate the concept of a stand-alone State Program. Currently, the regulations define the State Program as a program of projects and maintenance activities funded solely with state funds. There is no need for this stand-alone State Program if the state funded projects are included in the STIP. The proposed revisions have been published in the State Register and the public has been given an opportunity to comment and request a hearing on the revisions. SCDOT has received no comments or requests for hearing. Staff now requests that the Commission finally approve the revisions shown on the following pages. Upon Commission approval, staff will submit the final revisions to the Legislature for approval during the 2019 Legislative Session. 19

20 20

21 CHAPTER 63 Department of Transportation ARTICLE 1 Project Prioritization (Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Section (8)) Transportation Project Prioritization. A. Definition of Terms. 1. Commission means the governing board of the Department of Transportation. 2. Council of Government ( COG ) means the entity organized pursuant to S.C. Code Section and designated to carry on the continuing, comprehensive, cooperative transportation planning process for a rural area. 3. Department or SCDOT means the South Carolina Department of Transportation. 4. Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO ) means the entity designated to carry on the continuing, comprehensive, cooperative transportation planning process for an urbanized area in accordance with 23 USCA 134 and applicable regulations. 5. Project priority lists means priority ranking of projects within program categories proposed for inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP ) or State Program. The priority lists shall be established by the Commission based upon engineering recommendations and advice, application of the relevant criteria set out in S.C. Code Section (B)(8), and any other criteria that supports the purpose and need for the projects in each program category. 6. Secretary means the Secretary of Transportation of the Department. 7. State Highway Engineer means the deputy director of the division of engineering of the Department. 8. State Highway System means the system of roads that the Department is responsible for maintaining pursuant to Section of the S. C. Code of Laws, 1976, as amended. 9. Statewide Multimodal Transportation Long Range Plan ( Multimodal Plan ) is a long-range statewide transportation plan with a minimum 20-year forecast period at the time of adoption that provides for the development and implementation of the multimodal transportation system for the State as required by Section (A). It shall be consistent with federal planning requirements. It includes by reference all applicable plans, policies or reports relevant to the development of the plan. Projects from the Multimodal Plan may be ultimately included in the STIP or State Program. 10. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program ( STIP ) means a comprehensive prioritized program of state and federally funded transportation projects or phases of projects and other regionally significant projects. The STIP must cover a period of at least four years and must be updated at least once every four years. The STIP must be consistent with the Multimodal Plan and MPO Transportation Improvement Programs ( TIPs ). All federally funded projects and/or categories of projects are required to be included in the STIP in order to be eligible for federal funds pursuant to Title 23 and Title 49, Chapter 53 of the United States Code. 11. State Program includes the state non-federal aid improvement program and maintenance activities funded wholly by state funds administered by the Department without federal funding participation. 12. Transportation Asset Management Plan ( TAMP ) is a performance and risked based decision making tool designed to assist the Department in analyzing long-term system performance and condition to guide investment decisions. The TAMP is based on a 10-year horizon. It includes objectives and performance measures for preservation and improvement of the State Highway System. It is used to establish fiscally constrained performance goals for transportation infrastructure assets such as pavements and bridges. 21

22 B. The Statewide Multimodal Transportation Long Range Plan ( Multimodal Plan ). 1. The Multimodal Plan will be updated approximately every five years, or more frequently if deemed appropriate by the Commission. The plan will be developed in accordance with all applicable federal guidelines and regulations, including a minimum 20-year forecast period estimating future transportation needs and projected costs. It will include goals and objectives for long-term strategies for addressing transportation needs across the State. 2. The Multimodal Plan will be subdivided into at least the following categories: a. bridges; b. interstates; c. pavements; d. mass transit; e. statewide significant corridors; f. passenger and high speed rail; g. rail corridor preservation; h. non-motorized transportation modes; i. State Strategic Highway Safety Plan; j. MPO long-range plans; k. COG long-range plans; and l. statewide plan for 20-year routine maintenance needs. 3. The Multimodal Plan will include a public involvement plan providing for multiple opportunities for input by an advisory task force or committee, COG or MPO, transportation user groups and the general public. A copy of the draft plan will be made available to the public for review and comment at each engineering district office and COG office. 4. The Secretary of Transportation will present the Multimodal Plan to the Commission for approval along with all comments received. After approval by the Commission, the final Multimodal Plan will be published on the SCDOT website. The Multimodal Plan may be revised from time to time as permitted by federal law or regulation. C. Project Priority Lists. 1. The Commission shall establish project priority lists for each program category proposed to be included in the STIP and the State non-federal aid program. The Secretary shall present a recommendation for Commission approval using a detailed analysis and evaluation applying the specific criteria applicable to each program category. Local option sales tax projects and projects funded solely by C-Funds are excluded from the project prioritization process established by S.C. Code Section (B)(8). 2. The project priority lists provide information to the Commission and the public. The order in which projects appear in the priority lists is the order in which those projects will be placed in the STIP unless the Commission provides a written justification based upon circumstances that warrant a deviation from the established order on the lists. The circumstances upon which the Commission may deviate from the lists are significant financial or engineering considerations, delayed permitting, force majeure, pending legal actions directly related to the proposed project that is bypassed, federal law or regulation, or economic growth. 3. The State Highway Engineer shall develop a ranking process for applying uniform and objective criteria applicable to each program category. The ranking processes will be described in engineering directives issued by the State Highway Engineer. The ranking processes shall list the criteria to be considered in each program category, and include a methodology for applying the criteria and the weight to be accorded each criterion where applicable. The criteria shall include any criteria listed in S.C. Code Section (B)(8) which is relevant to the program category and any other criteria relevant to the program category. 4. In program categories where evaluating environmental impacts is an approved criterion for prioritization, environmental impacts to be evaluated should consider the potential adverse effects of the project on natural resources. 22

23 5. Alternative transportation solutions will be considered as a part of the environmental review process rather than during the project prioritization process. 6. Local land use plans will be considered as part of the long range planning process rather than during the project prioritization process. 7. In program categories where evaluating potential for economic development is an approved criterion for prioritization, the evaluation of potential economic development will include a consultation with the Department of Commerce as well as the use of transportation economic development models. 8. Financial viability, including a life cycle analysis of estimated maintenance and repair costs over the expected life of the project, will be considered in the development of the TAMP rather than during the project prioritization process. D. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. 1. A draft of a new STIP or any revision to the STIP to adjust category or project information relating to cost, schedule, scope, and priority will be prepared under the direction of the Secretary of Transportation and presented to the Commission for consideration and approval. The draft STIP will include fiscally constrained project cost and schedule information for the reporting period and will be based on estimated federal-aid and state funding levels by program. The draft STIP will be made available to the public for review and comment at each SCDOT district office and at the COG offices. 2. The draft STIP will be presented to the Commission for review along with any relevant project priority rankings, the recommendations of local transportation technical committees, and all public comments received. The Secretary may make recommendations to the Commission regarding any funding changes to the annual allocation plan resulting from federal or state legislation. 3. The STIP adopted and approved by the Commission will reflect Commission decisions on the overall funding distribution for the federal-aid and state funded programs during the years covered by the STIP. After approval by the Commission the STIP will be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration for final approval and published in the SCDOT website. E. State Program. 1. A draft of a new State Program or any revision to the State Program to adjust category or project information relating to cost, schedule, scope, and priority will be prepared under the direction of the Secretary and presented to the Commission for consideration and approval. The draft State Program will include fiscally constrained project cost and schedule information for the reporting period and will be based on estimated funding levels by program. The draft State Program will be made available to the public for review and comment at each SCDOT district office and at the COG offices. 2. The draft State Program will be presented to the Commission for review along with any relevant project priority rankings, and all public comments received. The Secretary may make recommendations to the Commission regarding any funding changes to the annual allocation plan. The State Program adopted and approved by the Commission will reflect Commission decisions on the overall funding distribution for the program during the years covered by the State Program. HISTORY: Added by State Register Volume 32, Issue No. 6, eff June 27, Amended by State Register Volume 41, Issue No. 5, Doc. No. 4683, eff May 26,

24 24

25 2018 Ten-Year District Review 25

26 Ten-Year District Review Slide 2 26 The commission may establish such highway districts as in its opinion shall be necessary for the proper and efficient performance of its duties. The commission, every ten years, must review the number of highway districts and the territory embraced within the districts and make such changes as may be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the districts. SC

27 Historical District Structures Today Slide

28 2009 District Realignment Slide 4 28 Anderson moved from District 3 to District 2 Aiken moved from District 1 to District 7

29 Driving force for the 2009 Realignment Slide 5 29

30 2009 Realignment Produced Results Slide 6 30

31 2009 Realignment Produced Results Slide 7 31

32 2018 Ten-Year District Review Slide Did the 2009 District Realignment achieve the results expected? 2. Are there any other reasonable and feasible changes that could be implemented with either the number of highway districts or territory embraced within the districts that would improve district operations? Scenarios Considered: Additional Shifting of the Territories of the Seven Districts Expanding to Eight Districts Consolidating to Four Districts

33 2018 Ten-Year District Review Seven Balanced Districts Scenario Pros: Achieves better rebalancing of workload Cons: Every district impacted Nearly 30% of the counties in the state would change districts Slide 9 33 Introduces organizational inefficiencies with daily and emergency operations along the coast

34 2018 Ten-Year District Review Cons: Introduces organizational inefficiencies with daily and emergency operations along the coast Increases operational costs Slide Eight Districts Scenario Pros: Achieves better rebalancing of workload

35 2018 Ten-Year District Review Four Districts Scenario Pros: Achieves mathematical balancing of workload Cons: Likely impairment of timely resolution of complex issues as district management would be stretched over very large geographic regions Slide 11 35

36 The planned rebalancing was achieved No clear benefits to making additional changes Avoid distraction to implementing increased road and bridge programs Slide Ten-Year District Review Recommendation 36 Retain Existing Alignment There is no compelling reason to revise the district structure that the Commission put into place in 2009.

37 Motion for Consideration Based on the 2018 Ten-Year District Review, the Commission finds no compelling reason to further revise the district structure at this time. Therefore in order to ensure the proper and efficient operation of the districts over the next decade, the number of highway districts will remain at seven and the territories embraced by each district will remain the same as established in 2009 by the Commission. Slide 13 37

38 38

39 39

40 Executive Summary In 1993, Act 181 established that SCDOT must review the number and territory embraced by its highway districts every ten years. The commission may establish such highway districts as in its opinion shall be necessary for the proper and efficient performance of its duties. The commission, every ten years, must review the number of highway districts and the territory embraced within the districts and make such changes as may be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the districts. SC The initial highway district structure was established in 1920, and divided the state into four regions: Greenville, Columbia, Orangeburg and Florence. In 1920, the size of the state highway system was approximately 3,000 centerline miles serving a population of nearly 1.7 million people. This structure stood until 1955 when a seven district structure was established to manage a dramatically larger state highway system of 25,146 centerline miles serving an estimated 2.3 million people statewide. Following the passage of Act 181, the first modern district review was performed by a consulting firm in The size of the state highway system in 1998 had again grown dramatically to 41,535 centerline miles serving an estimated population of 3.9 million. However, the 1998 study did not recommend any revisions to the number of districts or territories encompassed by the district boundaries. The next ten year district review was completed in 2008 utilizing internal resources. The size of the state highway system in 2008 was 41,429 centerline miles and was serving a population of 4.5 million people. The 2008 review recommended that in order to rebalance the workload, the geographic boundaries of District 2 be expanded to include Anderson County and District 7 be expanded to include Aiken County. This resulted in District 1 and 3 each contracting by one county. This new District structure was implemented by the Commission effective July 1, Revised District Structure Anderson moved from District 3 to District 2 Aiken moved from District 1 to District 7 40 Page 2

41 While the 2009 realignment was not intended to completely balance the workload across all of the districts, it was anticipated to increase the load in Districts 2 and 7, while at the same time reducing the load in Districts 1 and 3. The below chart reflects the planned redistribution of the workload from the 2008 review and approved by the Commission in Factors considered in the review were population, lane miles, annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and total land area. As we approach the ten year anniversary of the 2009 district realignment, 2018 data was produced to compare to the anticipated district workload scores. This comparative data is shown in the below chart and is essential to determine if the planned realignment of 2009 to rebalance the workloads produced the intended results. By comparing the above charts, it is evident that over the past decade, the workloads were indeed rebalanced as planned with the previous district realignment. 41 Page 3

42 In addition, a comparison of the distribution of Maintenance Work Requests statewide prior to the 2009 district alignment relative to the current district alignment reaffirms that a more balanced workload has been achieved. The below chart represents the Maintenance Work Requests received prior to the 2009 realignment and it clearly reflects an imbalance. As shown in the chart below, the 2009 realignment reflects an improved distribution of Maintenance Work Requests across the districts. 42 Page 4

43 While the previous realignment did not completely rebalance the workloads across all seven of the districts, the benefits of attempting to achieve a complete rebalancing with the seven district structure would be questionable. It would require all seven districts to shift their boundaries, resulting in the movement of thirteen different counties to different districts. This option would not only require the shifting of Aiken County once again, it would introduce organizational inefficiencies. Most notably of these would be an increase from two to three, the number of districts involved in operations associated with the unique and fast growing coastal region. Additional options considered as part of this 2018 review included the possible creation of an eighth district or consolidating to four districts in order to rebalance the workload. While these options produced varying mathematical results with the workload scores, the overriding concern was the higher operating costs and likely organizational inefficiencies introduced into SCDOT s daily and emergency operations. It is also very important to note that the most critical management challenge facing SCDOT over the next ten years is delivering the aggressive transportation program planned in response to the increased state gas tax. Diverting the agency s management attention to implementing revisions to the district alignment would have a significant negative impact on SCDOT s ability to successfully deliver the increased road and bridge programs that have been committed to the citizens and businesses of the state. Based on an analysis of the data regarding the proper and efficient operation of the districts achieved since the last district realignment coupled with the increased road and bridge programs the agency is now charged with delivering, there is no compelling reason to modify the number of highway districts or the territory embraced within the districts. Therefore, it is recommended that the number of highway districts and the territory embraced within the districts should remain unchanged for the next decade Recommendation: Retain current district alignment. 43 Page 5

44 Table of Contents Executive Summary Page 2 History of the Ten-Year District Review.. Page 7 Overview and Assessment of the 2008 Ten-Year District Review Page Assessment and Recommendation Scenario 1: Seven Balanced Districts... Page 12 Scenario 2: Eight Districts. Page 13 Scenario 3: Four Districts.. Page 14 Recommendation for 2018 Ten-Year District Review.. Page 15 Appendix A: Data Table for 2018 Ten-Year District Review.. Page 17 Appendix B: 2018 Workload Scores Sorted by District... Page 18 Appendix C: District Maintenance Work Requests Tables.. Page 19 Appendix D: Population Trends by District.... Page Page 6

45 History of the Ten-Year District Review In 1993, Act 181 established that SCDOT must review the number and territory embraced by its highway districts every ten years. The commission may establish such highway districts as in its opinion shall be necessary for the proper and efficient performance of its duties. The commission, every ten years, must review the number of highway districts and the territory embraced within the districts and make such changes as may be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the districts. SC The initial highway district structure was established in 1920 and divided the state into four regions: Greenville, Columbia, Orangeburg and Florence. In 1920, the size of the state highway system was approximately 3,000 centerline miles serving a population of nearly 1.7 million people. This structure stood until 1955 when a seven district structure was established to manage a dramatically larger state highway system of 25,146 centerline miles serving an estimated 2.3 million people statewide. Following the passage of Act 181 in 1993, the first modern district review was performed by a consulting firm in 1998 at a cost of approximately $300,000. The size of the state highway system in 1998 had again grown dramatically to 41,535 centerline miles serving an estimated 3.9 million population. However, the 1998 study did not recommend any revisions to the number of districts or territories encompassed by the district boundaries. The next ten year district review was completed in 2008 and utilized internal resources. The size of the state highway system in 2008 was 41,429 centerline miles and was serving a population of 4.5 million people. A committee of employees from across SCDOT was formed utilizing members from administration, auditing, engineering, and the districts, as well as the Federal Highway Administration. The review process was completed at a cost of less than $50,000. The committee first looked at the history of how the engineering districts were aligned, the requirements of the statute, and established an evaluation methodology based on their collective experience and the original review conducted in From this information, the committee evaluated multiple alternatives and developed recommendations for the Commission. Overview and Assessment of the 2008 Ten-Year District Review The 2008 district review interpreted that the legislative intent behind proper and efficient performance meant striving to achieve equity among the districts as it relates to workload in order to aid efficiency through improved internal and external customer service. Accordingly, data was collected on many items that impact the work load in a district such as population, lanes miles, vehicle miles travelled (traffic) and land area. Weighted scores for each of those elements were established as a baseline and a planning tool to assist with realigning workloads. The work load scores range between 0 and 200 for each of the four categories and were weighted as follows: Population 30% Lane Miles Maintained 30% Annual Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) 30% Land Area 10% 45 Page 7

46 SCDOT District boundaries from 1955 through 2008 The chart below depicts the 2008 workload scores for each of the scoring elements for the seven districts. Prior to the realignment in 2009, Districts 2 and 7 were significantly lower in relative workload scoring compared to the other districts. The Problem in Page 8

47 As shown in the next chart, this imbalance in workloads was also reflected in the number of work requests received by the county maintenance units within those Districts during the 2008 review period. The 2008 review considered many scenarios, but ultimately recommended that in order to rebalance the workload, the geographic boundaries of District 2 should be expanded to include Anderson County and District 7 should be expanded to include Aiken County. This resulted in District 1 and 3 each contracting by one county. This new district structure was adopted by the Commission effective July 1, SCDOT Revised 2009 District Structure Anderson moved from District 3 to District 2 Aiken moved from District 1 to District 7 47 Page 9

48 While the 2009 realignment was not intended to completely balance the workload across all of the districts, it was expected to increase the load in Districts 2 and 7, while reducing the load in Districts 1 and 3. The chart reflects the planned redistribution of Workload Scores based on the 2008 review. The Plan As we approach the ten year anniversary of the 2009 district realignment, 2018 data was produced to compare to the 2008 baseline district workload scores. This data is essential to determine if the planned realignment of 2009 to rebalance the workloads produced the intended results. Below is a chart reflecting the redistribution of Workload Scores resulting from the 2009 District Realignment. Successful Results! By comparing the actual results with the projected values, it is evident that over the past decade, the workloads were rebalanced as intended with the 2009 district realignment. 48 Page 10

49 Additionally, Maintenance Work Request and Equipment data for State Fiscal years 2016, 2017 and 2018 also reflected a more balanced work load across the districts. District Distribution of Maintenance Work Requests After 2009 Realignment SFY SFY SFY year avg Relative Share District 1 14,497 12,250 12,960 13,236 19% District 2 7,984 7,802 9,088 8,291 12% District 3 10,283 9,299 10,800 10,127 15% District 4 13,377 11,271 12,923 12,524 18% District 5 9,584 9,040 9,806 9,477 14% District 6 9,408 8,016 10,485 9,303 13% District 7 6,279 6,153 7,329 6,587 9% 71,412 63,831 73,391 69,545 While the 2009 realignment did not completely rebalance the workloads across all seven of the districts, it did produce a more balanced workload statewide Assessment and Recommendation While the 2009 district restructuring delivered the intended results over the last decade, the following scenarios have been analyzed using current data to determine if further refinements can be made to the number or geographic boundaries of the districts for the 2018 Ten-Year District Review. 49 Page 11

50 Scenario 1: Seven Balanced Districts A Seven Balanced District Scenario has been explored in 2018 in order to determine if an even greater level of workload equity across the districts could be achieved. The Seven Balanced Districts Scenario would result in dramatic changes to all existing districts as thirteen different counties would be reassigned to different districts. Those counties are: Cherokee, Aiken, Newberry, Kershaw, Lee, Calhoun, Clarendon, Williamsburg, Georgetown, Dorchester, Colleton, Beaufort and Jasper. Existing District Boundaries Seven Balanced Districts Scenario Although greater equity in the distribution of the workload scores across the districts could be mathematically achieved through a Seven Balanced District Scenario, the operational impacts of this scenario should be considered. This scenario would introduce organizational inefficiencies most notably by increasing from two to three, the number of districts involved in operations associated with the unique and fast growing coastal region (see Appendix D for population trend data). Specifically, the Seven Balanced District Scenario would require SCDOT to operate and manage traffic within the rapidly growing Berkeley-Dorchester-Charleston region from two separate districts; manage Beaufort and Jasper from a district more familiar with inland operations. It would also split the river and floodway regions between Georgetown-Horry across two separate districts. Daily operations, as well as emergency operations would likely be impaired by this inefficient organizational structure. 50 Page 12

51 Therefore, a Seven Balanced District Scenario is not recommended for implementation. This is due to the significant disruption it would introduce to the existing organization, processes and procedures within the county and district offices, as well as the operational challenges that would be introduced to the agency s responsibility for providing a safe and efficient transportation system. Scenario 2: Eight Districts The option of creating an eighth district in order to redistribute the workloads was also considered as part of this 2018 review. An eight district scenario would require the movement of seven counties: Jasper, Beaufort, Hampton, Colleton, Dorchester, Georgetown and Williamsburg. Existing District Boundaries Eight Districts Scenario However, the Eight Districts Scenario did not achieve a complete rebalancing, created additional operating costs and would be expected to introduce organizational inefficiencies for the state s unique and fast growing coastal region as well. 51 Page 13

52 Scenario 3: Four Districts As part of the 2018 review, an analysis of a Four Districts Scenario was also prepared. In essence, this scenario would reinstitute the Greenville-Columbia-Florence-Orangeburg district structure from the 1920 s. Existing District Boundaries Four Districts Scenario If the four district structure from the 1920 s were reinstituted, the workload scores would still remain unbalanced. It is possible to achieve a mathematically balanced workload for the four district scenario by moving Chesterfield County from the Columbia region to the Florence Region. However, the size of the state highway system and the population that the agency is responsible to serving has changed dramatically over the past 100 years. The major disadvantage of a four district scenario is that it would stretch the management structure of the districts across very large geographic regions. This is especially true for the Columbia district that is hundreds of miles long and encompasses several major urban areas of the state. Timely resolution of complex issues would likely be delayed due to the extensive workloads that would need to be consolidated. 52 Page 14

53 Recommendation for the 2018 Ten-Year District Review Based on an analysis of the data regarding the proper and efficient operation of the districts achieved since the last district realignment and the alternative scenarios considered, there is no compelling reason to revise the current structure. Additionally, the most critical management challenge currently facing SCDOT is delivering the aggressive transportation improvement program planned over the next ten years. Diverting the agency s management attention to implementing potential revisions to the district alignment would likely have a significant negative impact on SCDOT s ability to successfully deliver the increased road and bridge programs which are being enabled by the recently increased state gas tax. Therefore, it is recommended that the number of highway districts and the territory embraced within the districts should remain unchanged for the next decade Recommendation: Retain current district alignment. 53 Page 15

54 Appendices 54 Page 16

55 Appendix A: Data Table for 2018 Ten-Year District Review COUNTY Population (2010 Census) Score Lane Miles (as of 12/31/2017) Score Annual Vehicle Miles Travelled (Jan - Dec 2017 data) Score Total Area Score Total County Score Abbeville County 25, , ,740, Aiken County 160, , ,837,325, , Allendale County 10, , ,432, Anderson County 187, , ,076,694, Bamberg County 15, , ,264, Barnwell County 22, , ,280, Beaufort County 162, , ,271,897, Berkeley County 177, , ,830,272, , Calhoun County 15, , ,367, Charleston County 350, , ,860,027, , Cherokee County 55, , ,558, Chester County 33, , ,786, Chesterfield County 46, , ,678, Clarendon County 34, , ,451, Colleton County 38, , ,272, , Darlington County 68, , ,928, Dillon County 32, , ,207, Dorchester County 136, , ,276,384, Edgefield County 26, , ,317, Fairfield County 23, , ,758, Florence County 136, , ,699,854, Georgetown County 60, , ,200, , Greenville County 451, , ,132,923, Greenwood County 69, , ,334, Hampton County 21, , ,194, Horry County 269, , ,795,542, , Jasper County 24, , ,049,975, Kershaw County 61, , ,853, Lancaster County 76, , ,010, Laurens County 66, , ,304, Lee County 19, , ,474, Lexington County 262, , ,112,051, Marion County 33, , ,877, Marlboro County 28, , ,745, McCormick County 10, ,904, Newberry County 37, , ,341, Oconee County 74, , ,406, Orangeburg County 92, , ,626,230, , Pickens County 119, , ,199, Richland County 384, , ,942,447, Saluda County 19, , ,407, Spartanburg County 284, , ,342,903, Sumter County 107, , ,012,642, Union County 28, , ,722, Williamsburg County 34, , ,267, York County 226, , ,239,380, Statewide Totals 4,625,364 90, ,507,845,323 32, Page 17

56 Appendix B: 2018 Workload County District 2018 Population Score 2018 Lane Miles Score 2018 Annual VMT Score 2018 Area Score 2018 Total Score Kershaw County Lee County Lexington County Richland County Sumter County Abbeville County Anderson County Edgefield County Greenwood County Laurens County McCormick County Newberry County Saluda County Greenville County Oconee County Pickens County Spartanburg County Cherokee County Chester County Chesterfield County Fairfield County Lancaster County Union County York County Darlington County Dillon County Florence County Georgetown County Horry County Marion County Marlboro County Williamsburg County Beaufort County Berkeley County Charleston County Colleton County Dorchester County Jasper County Aiken County Allendale County Bamberg County Barnwell County Calhoun County Clarendon County Hampton County Orangeburg County Page 18

57 Appendix C: District Maintenance Work Requests Tables District Distribution of Maintenance Work Requests Prior to 2009 Realignment SFY SFY SFY year avg Relative Share District 1 15,482 20,323 16,903 17,569 28% District 2 3,594 3,155 2,265 3,005 5% District 3 16,220 13,238 10,294 13,251 21% District 4 7,499 7,816 6,773 7,363 12% District 5 8,491 8,508 7,336 8,112 13% District 6 9,672 8,642 6,958 8,424 14% District 7 5,380 3,731 3,292 4,134 7% 66,338 65,413 53,821 61,857 District Distribution of Maintenance Work Requests After 2009 Realignment SFY SFY SFY year avg Relative Share District 1 14,497 12,250 12,960 13,236 19% District 2 7,984 7,802 9,088 8,291 12% District 3 10,283 9,299 10,800 10,127 15% District 4 13,377 11,271 12,923 12,524 18% District 5 9,584 9,040 9,806 9,477 14% District 6 9,408 8,016 10,485 9,303 13% District 7 6,279 6,153 7,329 6,587 9% 71,412 63,831 73,391 69, Page 19

58 Appendix D: Population Trends by District Est. District 1 714, , ,661 District 2 417, , ,916 District 3 810, , ,446 District 4 408, , ,333 District 5 577, , ,085 District 6 728, ,509 1,011,071 District 7 354, , ,300 4,012,012 4,625,474 4,959, Page 20

59 South Carolina Department of Transportation Commission Recommendations Approval Ratification Finding TAB ITEM 1 State Transportation Improvement Program ACTION RECOMMENDED PAGE(S) A. Public Comment Period Approval B. Revisions Approval State Highway System Additions/Deletions/Revisions Approval Construction Contracts Extension/Modification > $150,000 4 SC Transportation Infrastructure Bank none 5 Annual A. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) B. Long Range Statewide Transportation Plan (Long Range Plan) C. State Funded Maintenance Program D. Annual Budget E. Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) F. State Transit Plan 6 Capital Improvements Capital Improvement Request >$1,000 - Section Items 7 Construction Contracts Extension/Modification < $150,000 8 Emergency Repair Requests Per Section A. None B. None 59

60 60

61 61

62 62

63 63

64 64

65 65

66 66

67 67

68 68

69 69

70 70

71 71

72 72

73 73

74 74

75 75

76 76

77 77

78 78

79 79

80 80

81 81

82 82

83 83

84 84

85 85

86 86

87 87

88 88

89 89

90 90

91 91

92 92

93 93

94 94

95 95

96 96

97 97

98 98

99 South Carolina Department of Transportation Secretary Approvals for Commission Information For Information Only TAB ITEM ACTION RECOMMENDED PAGE(S) 1 Surplus Property Surplus Property Relinquished For Information Only Procurement Contracts Contracts > $500,000 (Individual or Aggregate) For Information Only Construction Contracts A. Execution of Regular Letting - October 2018 For Information Only B. Execution Design-Build Contract For Information Only C. Execution (by locals) D. Change Order > $250,000 For Information Only E. Emergency Contracts For Information Only Professional Services Contracts A. Execution For Information Only B. Execution (by locals) C. Extension/Modification For Information Only Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) Funding Requests 99

100 100

101 101

102 102

103 103

104 104

105 105

106 106

107 107

108 108

109 109

110 110

111 111

112 112

113 113

114 114

115 115

116 116

117 117

118 118

119 119

120 120

121 121

122 122

123 123

124 124

125 125

126 126

127 127

128 128

129 129

130 130

131 131

132 132

133 133

134 134

135 135

136 136

137 137

138 138

139 139

140 140

141 141

142 142

143 143

144 144

145 145

146 146

147 147

148 148

149 149

150 150

151 151

152 152

153 153

154 154

155 155

156 156

157 157

158 158

159 159

160 160

161 161

162 162

163 163

164 164

165 165

166 166

167 167

168 168

169 169

170 170

171 171

172 172

173 173

174 174

175 175

176 176

177 SCDOT Commission Financial Update 177 Presented December 6, 2018

178 SFY18-19 Revenue All Funding Sources (In Millions) Variance Actuals- Projected State Revenues $ 1,018 $ 319 $ 310 $ 9 Partnered Project Reimb (58) Federal Reimbursements 1, (77) Total $ 2,465 $ 607 $ 733 $ (126) ANALYSIS: Overall revenues are 17% less than projected due to Other Revenues, which are received as project work is completed and billed. State revenues are favorably within 3% of projected revenues Funding Source Annual Estimated Revenue YTD Actuals Thru 10/31/2018 YTD Projected Revenue

179 Variance Projected- Actuals Maintenance & System Preservation $ 1,170 $ 293 $ 348 $ 55 Capacity & Operational Improvements Project Debt Service Remaining Operations ANALYSIS: Overall, expenditures are tracking within 17% to forecasted levels. No adjustment to our planned programs are recommended at this time. _ 3 SFY18-19 Expenditures by Program (In Millions) Annual Spending Plan SFY 2019 YTD Actuals Thru 10/31/2018 YTD Projected Expenditures 179 Total $ 2,408 $ 561 $ 678 $ 117

180 YTD October SFY18-19 Expenditures by Program Project Debt Service $19,522,801 4% Remaining Operations $78,245,542 14% Capacity & Operational Improvements $170,856,129 30% Maintenance & System Preservation $292,793,899 52%

181 Open Commitments (In Millions) 5 181