Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Strategy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TAC reviews regional funding spreadsheet, cost estimate verification and criteria for future regional allocations
Summary
Staff updated TAC on cost estimate verification for CBTA round 4, presented a consolidated spreadsheet of regional allocations and reimbursements, and led a discussion about the purpose and criteria for the regional funding pot; members suggested aligning reporting to TIP/6‑year format and preparing candidate bond projects list.
CBTA/PlanRVA staff updated the Central Virginia Transportation Authority Technical Advisory Committee on the status of cost estimate verification for round 4 projects, presented a consolidated table summarizing regional allocations and reimbursements, and opened a discussion about the long‑term approach to allocating the regional funding pot.
Staff said the round 4 applications have been received and a third‑party verifier (Michael Baker) has most materials needed to complete cost estimate reviews; staff will provide SharePoint access so TAC members can review application folders and the verifier's comments. One project was still outstanding with the verifier, staff said, and project applicants should expect follow‑up this week if they have not yet provided required materials.
Staff also showed a roll‑up spreadsheet of projects that received regional allocations through the first three rounds, with columns for project ID, locality, allocation plan, identified expenditure years, latest cost estimates, CBTA funds committed, other funds reported, balance to complete, and amounts reimbursed as of Aug. 27, 2025. The spreadsheet shows about $42 million reimbursed to date (as of Aug. 27, 2025), staff said, and highlights projects where the originally identified expenditure year does not match current project timing.
TAC members suggested the regional reporting be cross‑checked with the allocation plan, the six‑year improvement program and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) so the timing of obligations and cash flow is easier to understand. One member noted many projects are backloaded, with much of the spending occurring near project completion, while local jurisdictions sometimes advance work using local funds and seek regional reimbursement later.
On broader strategy, staff and members discussed whether the regional pot should be preserved for very large, multi‑jurisdictional "moonshot" projects that cannot be funded locally or whether the pot should also be available for smaller, high‑value projects and early project work such as preliminary engineering. Members suggested hybrid approaches (for example, reserving a portion for large bond candidates and keeping a portion available for smaller, timely needs). Several members said the CBTA framework document already allows flexibility and that the candidate bond project list will help plan priorities for the regional pot.
Finally, staff said they had embarked on preliminary estimate verification for proposed bond projects and were treating those evaluations individually with consultant support. Staff asked members to expect SharePoint links and to complete reviews in the coming weeks so the verifier can finalize findings before TAC and finance committee decisions.
No formal vote was taken on policy changes at the meeting; TAC discussion produced direction to staff to align reporting with TIP/6‑year formats, continue estimate verification with the third‑party reviewer for round 4 and bond candidates, and provide a clear set of options for the finance committee when off‑cycle requests or reprogramming options are considered.
