The Centre County Board of Commissioners held a town hall meeting on Thursday, April 6, 2017, to receive public input on local transportation funding. The town hall was held at the Courthouse Annex in Bellefonte. The public can continue the dialogue by emailing act89funding@centrecountypa.gov.

1. Local Transportation
Funding
Centre County Board of
Commissioners
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Courthouse Annex

2. Transportation Bill (Act 89 of 2013)
• By 2020, $2.3-$2.4
billion in new
revenue for
transportation
funding1
• Gives Counties
option to pass
resolutions to collect
an additional $5
registration fee 1 - www.penndot.gov/about-us/Pages/Act-89-Funding-Plan.aspx
2
• 14 counties have passed resolutions to collect the
$5 fee
• Signed by former-Governor Tom Corbett in 2013
Photo: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Media Services
http://www.pacast.com/display_media_photo.asp?page=32

3. How Would Centre County
Benefit?
• As of December 4, 2016, 120,537
non-exempt vehicles registered in
Centre County
• Potential funding to be used for
transportation projects:
–$5 Fee annual yield at 100% - $602,685
–$5 Fee annual yield at 80% - $482,148

4. Important Points
• 100% of the fee returns to Centre
County. PennDOT cannot charge an
administration fee. (per the law)
• 100% must be spent in Centre County
• 100% must be used for transportation
projects (per the law)
• Can be used to leverage State and
Federal Transportation Funds
4

5. Leveraging Local $ for State
$
• PennDOT released incentives for local
bridge bundling program for counties who
have passed resolutions to collect the $5
Vehicle Registration Fee
• Any remaining funds after an initial
offering would be made available to the
rest of those same counties again.

6. Annual County Liquid Fuels Program
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Requested Funded

7. Requested: $2,798,370
Awarded: $332,125
11.9%
Liquid Fuel Requests & Awards
By Planning Region (2008-2017)
Requested: $441,672
Awarded: $199,697
45.2%
Requested: $1,194,633
Awarded: $396,453
33.2%
Requested: $1,004,343
Awarded: $257,575
25.6%
Requested: $567,589
Awarded: $103,088
18.2%
Requested: $2,112,590
Awarded: $408,383
19.3%
Requested: $2,171,565
Awarded: $362,551
16.7%

8. Municipal Response (as of 3/1 deadline)
Boggs Township Halfmoon
Township
Snow Shoe
Township
Millheim
Borough
College Township Harris Township Spring Township Snow Shoe
Borough
Ferguson
Township
Patton Township Bellefonte
Borough
State College
Borough
Gregg Township Penn Township Centre Hall
Borough
Unionville
Borough
Haines Township Potter Township Milesburg
Borough 19 of 35

9. Use of the Fee
Options Municipal
Support
A) Enhance the Liquid Fuel grant pool 4
B) Use the fee or a portion of the fee as
leverage/match for state and/or federal funding for
potential multi-million dollar transportation
projects
1
C) Hybrid of Options A & B 5
D) Other funding formula/method* 2
E) Do not levy the $5 fee 6
* Prefer funding be left to municipal discretion. Would like each municipality to
receive their portion of fee.

10. Municipal Response - Stats
Boggs Township Halfmoon Township Snow Shoe Township Millheim Borough
College Township Harris Township Spring Township Snow Shoe Borough
Ferguson Township Patton Township Bellefonte Borough State College Borough
Gregg Township Penn Township Centre Hall Borough Unionville Borough
Haines Township Potter Township Milesburg Borough
19 of 35
•125,732 residents or
79.7% of the County
population
(US Census – ACS 2011-2015 estimates)

11. In Favor of Enacting Fee
Boggs Township Halfmoon
Township
Snow Shoe
Township
Millheim
Borough
College
Township
Harris Township Spring Township Snow Shoe
Borough
Ferguson
Township
Patton Township Bellefonte
Borough
State College
Borough
Gregg Township Penn Township Centre Hall
Borough
Unionville
Borough
Haines Township Potter Township Milesburg
Borough 12 of 19

12. In Favor of Enacting Fee -
Stats
Boggs Township Halfmoon Township Snow Shoe Township Millheim Borough
College Township Harris Township Spring Township Snow Shoe Borough
Ferguson Township Patton Township Bellefonte Borough State College Borough
Gregg Township Penn Township Centre Hall Borough Unionville Borough
Haines Township Potter Township Milesburg Borough
12 of 19
Of Responding Municipalities:
• 88,794 residents or 70.6% of the population
US Census – ACS 2011-2015 estimates
• 341 miles or 60% of the Liquid Fuels eligible roadways
• 24 or 60% of the locally owned bridges over 20’

13. “As one of the smallest Borough's in PA, council believes this program gives
Unionville an opportunity to complete for transportation improvement projects.”
– Unionville Borough
“The fact that the amounts collected for this fee stay within Centre County for use
on Centre County projects and are ultimately utilized by Centre County drivers is
the overriding reason Council supports this initiative.”
– College Township
“The most attractive feature of the Act 89 funding is the ability to utilize a grant
from the County to match funding from the State.”
– Patton Township
“Funding is very limited. State liquid fuel allocations are approximately $32,500
annually, which is used to purchase road salt, anti-skid, fuel for equipment and
maintenance of equipment.”
– Snow Shoe Borough
Comments: In Favor

14. Not In Favor of Enacting Fee
Boggs Township Halfmoon
Township
Snow Shoe
Township
Millheim
Borough
College
Township
Harris Township Spring Township Snow Shoe
Borough
Ferguson
Township
Patton Township Bellefonte
Borough
State College
Borough
Gregg Township Penn Township Centre Hall
Borough
Unionville
Borough
Haines Township Potter Township Milesburg
Borough 6 of 19

15. Not In Favor of Enacting Fee -
Stats
Boggs Township Halfmoon Township Snow Shoe Township Millheim Borough
College Township Harris Township Spring Township Snow Shoe Borough
Ferguson Township Patton Township Bellefonte Borough State College Borough
Gregg Township Penn Township Centre Hall Borough Unionville Borough
Haines Township Potter Township Milesburg Borough
6 of 19
Of Responding Municipalities:
• 18,700 residents or 14.9% of the population
US Census – ACS 2011-2015 estimates
• 144.01 miles or 25.4% of the Liquid Fuels eligible
roadways
• 14 or 35% of the locally owned bridges over 20’

16. “The board raised questions related to the fairness of the tax, how the money
would be used and how the money would be allocated among municipalities in the
County.”
- Harris Township
“Council is recommending or suggesting that this question be considered for a
county-wide referendum”
- Bellefonte Borough
“The Supervisors approved a strategic plan stating their goal for the next five years
was not to vote to raise taxes or keep them at the same level for their citizens.
Placing an additional fee (tax) on motor vehicle registrations is counter to this goal.”
- Halfmoon Township
“Although the Board of Supervisors values its partnership with the County as it
applies to funding through the liquid fuels program, they are unanimously opposed
to the $5 registration fee.”
- Haines Township
Comments: Not In Favor

17. County Decision – Will Support Either Way
Boggs Township Halfmoon
Township
Snow Shoe
Township
Millheim
Borough
College
Township
Harris Township Spring Township Snow Shoe
Borough
Ferguson
Township
Patton Township Bellefonte
Borough
State College
Borough
Gregg Township Penn Township Centre Hall
Borough
Unionville
Borough
Haines Township Potter Township Milesburg
Borough 1 of 19

18. County Decision – Will Support Either Way
Boggs Township Halfmoon Township Snow Shoe Township Millheim Borough
College Township Harris Township Spring Township Snow Shoe Borough
Ferguson Township Patton Township Bellefonte Borough State College Borough
Gregg Township Penn Township Centre Hall Borough Unionville Borough
Haines Township Potter Township Milesburg Borough
1 of 19
Of Responding Municipalities:
• 18,238 residents or 14.5% of the population
US Census – ACS 2011-2015 estimates
• 83.09 miles or 14.6% of the Liquid Fuels
eligible roadways
• 2 or 5% of the locally owned bridges over 20’

19. “In general, the Board of Supervisors believe this ultimately is a decision of the
County Commissioners. The Board of Supervisors will support whichever decision is
made by the Commissioners”
- Ferguson Township
Comment: Will Support County Decision

20. 3) Are there transportation projects being deferred
because the municipality cannot meet a local match or
there is a lack of funding?
Total Cost of Identified Projects:
$5,521,000

21. Survey Results – Example of Deferred Projects
Project
Anticipated
Cost
Waddle Road Widening: Design & Construction
- Strouse to Clearview $450,000
Fiedler Road Bridge $802,000
Paradise & Long Road – Repairs & Repaving $400,000
Lower Coleville Road Bridge repairs $600,000
Railroad Street Bridge replacement $515,000
West End Improvements - includes traffic &
engineering study for lane changes, College &
Beaver Ave Streetscape projects
$2,430,000

22. Survey Results – Example of Deferred Projects

23. Town Hall Meetings
Date Location Time
Monday,
March 20
Moshannon Valley YMCA
Philipsburg
6:30 pm
Tuesday,
March 28
Patton Township Municipal
Building
State College
6:30 pm
Thursday,
April 6
Courthouse Annex – 3rd
Floor
Bellefonte
6:30 pm

24. 58 Municipally Owned Bridges
20’ or greater length

25. Local Bridges: Age
58 municipally owned bridges
with 20’ or greater spans
0
5
10
15
20
25
50 or older
40-49
25-39
0-24

26. Rating Condition
9 Excellent
8 Very Good
7 Good, some minor problems noted
6 Satisfactory, structural elements showing minor deterioration
5 Fair, primary structural elements are sound but showing minor cracks and signs of
deterioration
4 Poor, deterioration of primary structural elements has advanced
3 Serious, deterioration has seriously affected the primary structural
components
2 Critical, deterioration of primary structural components has advanced and
bridge will be closely monitored, or closed, until corrective action can be
taken.
1 Imminent failure, major deterioration in critical structural components.
Bridge is closed but corrective action may put the bridge back into light
service.
0 Failed, bridge is out of service and beyond corrective action.
Local Bridges: Condition Rating

27. Local Bridges: Structurally Deficient
• Indication of bridge’s overall status in terms of structural
soundness and ability to service traveling public
• An “SD” designation indicates that the bridge has
deterioration to one or more of its major components
• A rating of 4 or below indicates poor conditions that
result in a structural deficient classification
T-419 Lower Georges Valley
Road Bridge - Gregg Twp
If you’ve
passed a sign
like this…
Then you’ve
likely crossed
an SD bridge.

28. 13Structurally Deficient

29. T-305 East Hannah Road Bridge
Taylor Twp - 33’ span
Section loss & exposed rebar
Hole exposing beam
Missing stone in abutment

30. Cracking and rust
staining…precursor to
cracking
T-312 Shady Dell Road
Bridge - Worth Twp
• 25’ span

31. T-419 Lower Georges
Valley Road Bridge
Gregg Twp
• 23’ span
Abutment and wall
• Severe scour
• Mortar cracking/loss
• Abutments need removed from
stream
Superstructure
• Heavy corrosion & pitting
Superstructure
• Deck pans in poor
condition
• Crumbling asphalt

32. Cracks with
displacement on
Beams 1 & 12
Rust stains under Beam 2…precursor to cracking
T-942 Lower Coleville Road
Bridge - Spring Twp
• 52’ span

33. T-489 Front Street Bridge
Curtin Twp
• 90’ span
Cracking under joints on Beam 1

34. Mill Street Bridge
Howard Borough
• 28’ span
Deterioration of several
substructure components

35. T-519 Fiedler Road
Bridge - Haines Twp
• 26’ span
Section Loss & Severe Corrosion
on Exposed Beam

36. Hole & depression in deck
Crack with displacementCracked wing wall
T-467 Hoy Road Bridge
Walker Twp
• 25’ span

37. Local Bridges: “Borderline”
• “Borderline” is an Centre County MPO staff term for
bridges that have a 5 rating in one or more structural
areas
• While these bridges
are still in “fair”
condition, they are
nearing SD
designation
T-525 Wolves Gap Road
Bridge - Miles Twp

38. 18“Borderline” Bridges

39. Local Bridges: Functionally Obsolete
• An “FO” designation indicates that the bridge
has older features compared to more recently
built bridges.
• For example, road widths and weight limits
T-524 Brown Road
Bridge - Miles Twp
If you’ve
crossed a
one lane
bridge
Then you’ve
crossed an
FO bridge.

40. 10Functionally Obsolete

41. Local Bridges: Condition Analysis
58 municipally
owned bridges
• 13 are Structurally
Deficient
• 18 are “Borderline”
• 10 are Functionally
Obsolete
• 17 have no
designation

42. 41 of 58Municipally Owned Bridges
fall into those 3 categories

43. Small Local Structure Inventory
• Locally owned structures under 20’ are not
inspected under PennDOT contract
• Centre County MPO inventoried locations
several years ago
• Focused on 8’-20’ spans (bridges, pipes)

44. Around 100Locations with bridges or
pipes that are 8’ to 20’ in length

45. Hole in roadway
above concrete
slab…
…because the slab and
abutment had
collapsed
RushTwp

46. Jersey barrier (no railing)
Concrete deterioration
Vertical crack across entire structure
Snow Shoe Twp

47. Structure in fair condition…but maintenance needed
Snow Shoe Twp

48. A typical cross pipe
Snow Shoe Twp
second pipe to accommodate
heavier storm events

49. Moving Forward
• Feedback from Municipalities
• Feedback from Public (Town Hall Meetings)
• If the decision is to not move forward, then no
further action is needed.
• If the decision is to move forward, advertise
Ordinance
• No less than 90 days from passage of resolution,
PennDOT includes $5 adjustment in registration
expiration notices
• County would include fee into Liquid Fuel
disbursements beginning with 2018 projects or
leverage funds for larger state and/or federal
funds

50. Allocating the $5 Fee
• Direct Transportation Planning Staff to Leverage
the $5 fee funds
• Objective Evaluation of Projects focusing on
Safety and Need: Utilize MPO Projects list
• Awarded Projects
– Municipal Elected Officials/Manager or Sec/Treas
attend Commissioners’ public meeting to discuss
project and formally request funds
– Municipality would publicize the funding of the project
with $5 fee
– County would maintain website with data of how the
funds were collected, allocated, spent, and leveraged
– Annual Report released by County

51.  Adopted Goals/Criteria:
A. Economic Vitality
B. Safety and Security
C. Environment and Air Quality Conformity
D. Preservation of the Existing Transportation System
E. Accessibility and Mobility Options for People and Freight
F. Integration and Connectivity of the Transportation System
G. Efficient System Management and Operation
H. Consistency with Planned Growth and Development Areas

52. Goal Weighted Value
Safety & Security 100%
Preservation of Existing Transportation System 94%
Efficient System Management & Operations 86%
Integration & Connectivity 75%
Accessibility & Mobility Options 73%
Consistency with Planned Growth & Development Areas 63%
Environment & Air Quality 59%
Economic Vitality 53%

53. Two components:
 Structural Review
– PennDOT Bridge Risk Assessment Tool
– Engineer Inspection Reports
 Community Context
– Number/types of properties served
– Primary emergency service access
– Average Daily Traffic
– Detour

54. Thank
you!

55. ---INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK---