Cash Flow
State Procedures for Spending ARRA Highway Infrastructure Investment Funds

NCSL Resources

Other Resources

Updated February 10, 2010

By Jaime Rall

These findings of a 50-state survey conducted by NCSL detail how legislatures and state DOTs are allocating and spending ARRA highway investment funds.

On Feb. 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). After set-asides, the act’s “highway infrastructure investment” provisions apportioned over $26 billion to states for highways, bridges, and other surface transportation projects. States are required to obligate at least half the money by June 29, 2009, and the rest by March 2, 2010.

In the spring of 2009, NCSL conducted a 50-state survey of departments of transportation and legislatures about their processes for putting recovery funds to work. States were asked about how projects were being identified, selected and approved, the appropriations process, oversight and monitoring, and other legislative involvement. The results reveal varied approaches among the states to spending federal formula grants in general, and recovery funds in particular.

 


Survey Results* as of May 28, 2009

Abbreviations

  • DOT: Department of Transportation
  • MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization
  • RPA: Regional Planning Association
  • STIP: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
A-C | D-H | I-L | M | N | O-R | S-U | V-W
States How and by whom were projects identified? How and by whom were projects selected and approved? How were funds appropriated? What are the oversight and monitoring mechanisms? What is the legislature’s involvement in the process?
Alabama
NR** NR  NR  NR NR 
Alaska
The primary agency responsible for identifying “shovel ready” projects was the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). A bill was introduced by the governor identifying the administration’s priorities. Upon legislative inquiry, a complete list of all projects that met ARRA requirements was provided. The final list eliminated several of the governor’s larger priorities in favor of a more regional disbursement. The legislature made the final decision within the identified eligible list of projects provided by the DOT.  Funds were appropriated as general DOT appropriations with identified allocations.  The legislature will have limited oversight beyond its customary oversight.  Our legislature is not constitutionally mandated for any of the above. However, appropriations are required for expenditure of any state funds. Legislative involvement has been limited, but there is some desire to have more influence over the process. 
Arizona
Arizona's selection process for the state's portion of ARRA highway projects mirrored that for regular highway projects. After receiving input from regional entities and their own staff analysis, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) recommended a list of ARRA highway projects to the State Transportation Board (STB). The STB approved a final list after making a few changes to ADOT's recommendation. The STB consists of 7 members appointed by the Governor.   The Arizona Legislature does not appropriate federal highway monies.   Oversight, monitoring and reporting of ARRA highway projects is being handled by the executive branch.  As information became available earlier in 2009, numerous legislative meetings and committee hearings were held to explain the many areas of ARRA eligibility, uses, restrictions, dollar amounts, etc, including ARRA transportation monies. However, there was no direct legislative involvement in project selection or appropriations. 
Arkansas
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
California
Projects are being identified mainly by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), regional transportation agencies (including MPOs), and by cities and counties. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is collecting the information for all these agencies to put together a list of projects statewide. Similar to the identification of projects, Caltrans and the regions will be responsible for selecting the projects to be funded. The CTC is responsible for the allocation of funds.  2009 CA A 20 c appropriates the ARRA funds to Caltrans (essentially as a lump sum appropriation) to be used as specified in the bill.  All fund recipients will be required to report on their use of ARRA funds. The CTC will oversee the allocation of funds. The Legislature has already held several informational hearings about ARRA and the use of funds.   The Legislature is responsible for appropriating federal funding for highways, including ARRA funds. The process used to distribute ARRA funds was different from the allocation process in current law, and thus required legislation. (The ARRA process suballocates funding to the local level using a population-based formula.) 
Colorado
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Connecticut
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Delaware
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
District of Columbia
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Florida
Because of the “shovel-ready” requirement, highway projects identified for economic stimulus funding had already been identified for funding through the standard project selection process. To some degree, the Department of Transportation, the Legislature, the Governor’s Office, the Florida Transportation Commission, metropolitan planning organizations, and the public are all involved. Transportation projects receive funding only if they are included in the DOT’s Five-Year Work Program. The work program is updated annually and developed through a multi-step, cooperative planning process that involves state, regional, and local government officials and the public. As part of that planning process, the Legislature reviews and modifies the tentative work program before appropriating funding for the program’s first year.   (At the time of this survey response, the Legislature had not yet appropriated funding for FY 2009-10.) The General Appropriations Act typically does not mention specific transportation projects. Appropriations to the DOT are made in broad categories such as construction, resurfacing, right-of-way acquisition, transit, rail, and aviation.   We are not aware of any specific oversight or monitoring of recovery-funded highway projects other than that conducted by the Florida Transportation Commission and the Legislature during project selection.  See “project selection.” 
Georgia
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Guam
NA NA  NA  NA  NA 
Hawaii
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Idaho
Projects were identified by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Governor's Office (including a special Commission created by the Governor), Idaho's single TMA, MPOs, and the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (representing cities, counties, and highway districts). All of the entities mentioned in the project identification process were also involved to some extent in selecting projects for funding. All ARRA funded projects must be included in a current STIP or TIP in order to receive funding. The amended STIP—including selected ARRA-funded projects—was approved by the Idaho Transportation Board with input and approval from the Governor’s Office and executive Commission.   The recovery funds were appropriated by the Legislature at a total program level identified by a specific budget fund account. The appropriation was not set at the project level.
The ARRA funds are appropriated and are being tracked using a unique budget fund account. 
 
The Idaho Transportation Department is the primary agency involved with oversight and monitoring of the recovery funds. The Legislature will monitor use of the funds by tracking activity in the specific budget fund account these monies were appropriated in.   The Legislature is normally not involved with project identification and selection. They are legally mandated to appropriate funding at the program level. The Legislature was involved as mandated in the appropriation of ARRA funding at the program level. 
Illinois
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Indiana
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Iowa
The agencies/entities involved with identifying possible ARRA highway projects included the Iowa DOT, Iowa’s nine MPOs and 18 RPAs, the Iowa Transportation Commission and the public. Iowa DOT assessed which projects could be accomplished in the timeframes, meet ARRA requirements, and address current highway program objectives established by the Commission. Iowa DOT staff proposed projects to the Commission. The information was posted on the DOT Web site to secure public input. MPOs and RPAs followed their public input process to identify projects in their area. Those projects were also subject to public input, then submitted to the Iowa DOT to begin the project development process. The Commission approved Iowa DOT highway projects. MPO and RPA Policy Committees approved local ARRA projects. Projects were identified by either DOT staff or MPO/RPA Technical Advisory Committees. The projects selected went through established public review processes. Thereafter, projects were approved by the entities mentioned above.  As with all other federal highway funds, ARRA highway funds did not require direct action by the legislature or the Governor. The DOT director has been authorized by the Governor to apply for and administer federal transportation funds allocated to the state.  The state of Iowa has established an executive working group and department working group to oversee ARRA implementation. These working groups include staff from the governor’s office along with state agency directors.  The legislature is not legally or constitutionally mandated to be involved with the process of ARRA highway project identification, selection, appropriation, or monitoring. The legislature has not been involved in the highway project process. 
Kansas
The Kansas DOT and the state’s two MPO/TMAs identified possible projects that could meet the required timeframe, had statewide or regional significance and had been identified through several years of public involvement processes. Two of the five state-level projects to be funded with ARRA funds were "promised" as part of the 1999 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (1999 Session Laws Ch. 137), on a map of priority projects shown to legislators. Selection and approval of projects was made by KDOT in cooperation with the Governor’s office. Selection and approval of MPO projects was made by the MPO’s Board of Directors with the same considerations as the state projects.   The ARRA funds will flow directly to KDOT without additional legislative or gubernatorial involvement. While the Kansas Legislature does pass an annual appropriations bill which authorizes KDOT to spend money, no additional specific authorization is required for the stimulus funds.   KDOT will work closely with the Kansas Division of the Federal Highway Administration for oversight and monitoring of projects. The Governor has established an ARRA task force to help ensure accountability and transparency. The Kansas Legislature is not involved directly with oversight and monitoring,   The Kansas Legislature is not legally or constitutionally mandated to be involved with identifying specific projects nor for appropriating for specific projects; however, KDOT presents our estimated amount of construction spending each year which is tacitly approved by the Legislature. The Legislature has only been involved in a limited way regarding ARRA funds.
KDOT has provided updates to both the House and Senate Transportation Committees regarding ARRA projects and the selection process.
SB 296 / HB 2361 (in committee) would establish a process to evaluate and implement federal funding available for state agencies under ARRA. 
Kentucky
The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, with input from the MPOs, was responsible for identifying and compiling the list of potential projects. The House and Senate approved the projects in the Biennial Highway Construction Plan during the 2009 Regular Session. The General Assembly relied on recommendations and input from Kentucky’s State Highway Engineer. Besides being “shovel ready,” the criteria now also included: impact on the community, safety, economic development and the lack of other viable funding sources. The bill, HB 330, was adopted and became law on March 26, 2009.  In Kentucky all funds must be appropriated by the General Assembly. The funds were appropriated to specific projects as selected by the criteria listed above. The General Assembly provided the Executive Branch the flexibility to move forward with other projects if some were stalled due to pre-construction activities or to adjust estimated project costs for actual bids.  The Governor will ultimately be responsible for oversight and monitoring of the federal stimulus projects. The Secretary of the Transportation Cabinet and the State Highway Engineer will provide guidance for the day-to-day advancement of the projects.  The General Assembly and the administration were both highly involved in the process. State statutes require the administration to submit a recommended six-year highway plan to the General Assembly. The General Assembly has the authority to either agree to that recommendation or they may modify that recommended plan and enact it. This Session, the General Assembly adopted the Biennial Highway Construction Plan, HB 330, and also enacted the four out-years of the plan in HJR 105.  
Louisiana
The state Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) developed an initial $1.3 billion list of candidate projects. Besides ARRA requirements, DOTD also considered other factors, including impact on the traveling public, and the State as a whole and consistency with Louisiana Statewide Transportation Plan and State Transportation Improvement Program. Once final ARRA funding amounts and timeframes were known, DOTD reduced the list accordingly. The MPOs developed lists using their respective project identification and priority processes. DOTD made the final project selections from the Highway Priority Construction and Development Program, two of which were design-build projects. The House and Senate Committees on Transportation, Highways and Public Works approved the use of design-build technique for these two projects. The authority for expending ARRA funding was partially granted by the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget. The balance of funding authority is pending approval.  The Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget had to approve the expenditure cap. The projects that were submitted were already projects in the Highway Priority Construction and Development Program; therefore, no additional approvals were required.  A statewide committee has been established to monitor all ARRA funding. However, DOTD has the primary oversight and monitoring responsibilities of monitoring ARRA highway funding. Also, the House and Senate Committees on Transportation, Highways and Public Works, as well as the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget, can convene periodically and require updates on recovery-funded highway projects.  Provisions of state law provide that highway projects be selected through the highway priority process. This process results in the Highway Priority Construction and Development Program. The Legislature has authority to approve or disapprove the Highway Priority Construction and Development Program and to appropriate the necessary funds to administer the program. As mentioned above, two projects did require specific approval by the House and Senate Committees on Transportation, Highways and Public Works for the use of the design-build method. In addition, DOTD has presented the ARRA project list to the legislature and will provide periodic updates on the status of these projects. Also, as previously mentioned, the Legislature had to grant an increase in expenditure in order to utilize ARRA funding. 
Maine
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Maryland
Prior to passage of the legislation, Maryland DOT and the governor announced our intentions to utilize ARRA funding for “Fix it First” system preservation projects that could be spread throughout the state to ensure immediate employment impacts. Numerous local governments provided input to both the DOT and the Governor’s Office on the projects they wanted funded. Once the bill was enacted, the DOT identified two rounds of ready to go transportation projects and made recommendations to the Governor’s Office, which then approved projects that would be forwarded to the Maryland General Assembly and the MPOs. The first round of projects focused on system preservation projects and programs that had been deferred as a result of declining state revenues. The second round involved more public input – particularly for transit funding to local governments and transit operators. The department also reserved $62 million to be distributed to 23 county governments based on existing state formula. Local governments are identifying how to use those funds. Approvals by MPOs will be needed for projects located in MPO areas. As indicated under “project identification,” selection of highway projects was done primarily by agency staff providing options to the Governor’s office. The Governor’s office made the ultimate decision on what to announce to the public. MPOs and local governments have been involved in approvals where appropriate. The Maryland General Assembly was provided with lists of projects once they were announced by the Governor and had an opportunity within the FY 2010 budget process to restrict funding for certain uses, but did not choose to alter the project lists announced publicly by the Governor.  Funding for FY 2009 expenditures are being amended into the budget through a statutorily mandated amendment process. The budget committees may comment on but not reduce funds appropriated in this way. Funding for FY 2010 was added to the budget through a supplemental budget process, submitted by the governor and approved by the General Assembly after the budget committees reviewed a list of projects to be funded.  The Department of Transportation, Department of Budget and Management and Governor’s office are all involved in oversight an monitoring beyond the normal reporting requirements. The Maryland General Assembly will be provided with reports being submitted to the federal government and through periodic meetings with legislative staff.  The Maryland General Assembly is involved in project identification for certain highway and transit projects through the process of developing the six-year spending plan, which is submitted by the Governor to the legislature annually. The legislature has less involvement over how federal funds are spent (versus state transportation trust funds), so since ARRA funding is 100% federal, the legislative oversight was not as intense. Also, nearly all the ARRA funds were allocated toward system preservation projects, for which there is considerable trust within the legislature that the DOT will implement needed projects. The involvement of our legislature has been more MDOT providing them information and their approval of budget modifications overall than any decision process on the project identification or selection. The appropriation by the legislature was the budget amendment and modifications. The monitoring by the legislature was agreed to consist of what reporting we are required to give the federal entities and nothing more. 
Massachusetts
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Michigan
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Minnesota
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Mississippi
NR NR  As of April 13, 2009, Mississippi had not completed the appropriation process.  The Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of Audit (tentatively) will be involved with oversight and monitoring.  The Mississippi Legislature is mandated to be involved with the process to the extent that it has determined route location and project prioritization. The MDOT Selection Committee has selected the projects from the program that were in the ‘shovel-ready’ category. 
Missouri
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Montana
The DOT, MPOs, and transportation commission have been involved with identifying possible highway projects for recovery funding, using the same process as for the base formula program. The transportation commission made the final decision of which projects to fund, drawing on the recommendation of the DOT and MPOs.  Recovery funds were appropriated to selected highway projects by being approved by the legislature as a general DOT appropriation.  The agencies to be involved with oversight and monitoring are still to be determined.  The Montana legislature is mandated to appropriate funds. Beyond that, the legislature held hearings and accumulated projects but in the end (to this point) appropriated funds following the existing processes for formula funds. SB 481 (died in committee) would have exempted ARRA projects from the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act.  
Nebraska
Nebraska has left the decision for the spending of the highway stimulus dollars entirely in the hands of the Department of Roads, and the funds flowed directly to the agency. The Nebraska Constitution expressly prohibits the Legislature from laying out, planning, or directing the construction of certain roads or highways. However, the Department is a code agency, meaning they are under the authority of the Governor, who may have had some direct oversight on the specific projects selected. Nebraska Department of Roads (perhaps with the involvement of the Governor).  Funds flowed directly to the Nebraska Department of Roads. Usually, the Legislature is involved in setting the Department's budget based on the annual needs assessment that it presents to the body, but this process was not necessary for ARRA funds since Nebraska's transportation apportionment was determined by federal formula.  NR  No other involvement. The Nebraska Constitution expressly prohibits the Legislature from laying out, planning, or directing the construction of certain roads or highways.  
Nevada
Nevada's DOT identified State highways projects (previously identified in the STIP) that are eligible for ARRA money. Additionally, the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada and the RTC of Washoe County, in consultation with NDOT, identified highways projects that would be legible in their jurisdictions under the current approved State Work Plan (including the STIP). NDOT selected the projects, later approved by the Nevada Transportation Board of Directors. However, there is no requirement that the Board of Directors must approve ARRA projects. Additionally, the Legislature received testimony and recommended certain funding of various highway projects in certain areas of the State. Similarly, there is no requirement that the Legislature must approve the specific highway projects. There was testimony provided that NDOT would discuss the projects in advance with the Legislature.  NDOT is receiving the appropriations from the federal government.   According to NDOT, the FHWA, EPA, FTA, RTC of Washoe County, RTC of Southern Nevada, MPOs (there are 4 in Nevada), Legislative Counsel Bureau, State Budget Office, US House of Representatives, Transportation Board of Directors.   NR 
New Hampshire
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
New Jersey
NJDOT identified and selected projects for ARRA funding. NJDOT identified and selected projects for ARRA funding.  NR  NR  NR 
New Mexico
New Mexico in 2004 initiated a road construction program which the Legislature funded through the authorization of $1.585 billion in bond sales. Since then the state has been working on the 37 projects that were approved. As inflation ravaged the highway construction industry, the state was unable to fully fund all projects. Since these projects were shovel ready and had been previously authorized by the Legislature, the Legislature and the Executive designated these projects for the state’s transportation stimulus funding. Projects were selected and approved in 2004 as part of road construction program.  NR  The Governor has designated a task force that will be responsible for all oversight activity for the state. The legislative Finance Committee (LFC) will also assume a monitoring and oversight responsibility. The LFC will at its monthly meetings review ARRA activities. The Legislature through the constitution is responsible for appropriating all funding for the DOT.  
New York
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
North Carolina
The North Carolina Department of Transportation prepared extensive lists of projects in all transportation modes that might be eligible for stimulus while the various bills were under consideration. Where necessary the Board of Transportation added these projects to the STIP. NCDOT consulted with MPOs, industry, and others in developing the lists. North Carolina law gives the power of transportation infrastructure project selection to the Board of Transportation. (Recently the Governor directed the Board of Transportation to delegate this power to the Secretary of Transportation, as permitted by law.) Project selection is subject to statutory formulas, including an "equity formula" that specifies the regional distribution of most state and federal construction funds. The stimulus funds are subject to this statutory equity formula.   NR  NCDOT has provided updates on its website and to the General Assembly on its plans and progress with the stimulus funds. The General Assembly has created Select Committees to monitor and consider the stimulus program but to date has not created new laws for transportation project selection.   NR 
North Dakota
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Ohio
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Oklahoma
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Oregon
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Pennsylvania
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Puerto Rico
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Rhode Island
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
South Carolina
Even before ARRA was signed into law, the South Carolina DOT began to receive letters of support for specific projects across the state. These letters came from MPOs, Councils of Government (COGs), members of the SC General Assembly and members of the general public. SCDOT began a thorough review of each of these projects, as well as other projects identified in-house by staff to determine if they met the requirements of ARRA and the state’s transportation needs. In South Carolina, the SCDOT Transportation Commission has final authority on selecting projects. Project selection was divided into two phases. For the first phase, the SCDOT Transportation Commission delegated to SCDOT staff the ability to review and rank projects in four categories: resurfacing, interstate maintenance, safety and bridge replacement. The Commission then approved an amount of funding to be spent in each category. In the second phase, the Commission, MPOs and COGs are working to select local projects. The selected projects in each Congressional District will be brought back before the full Commission for approval.  ARRA funds will be received on a reimbursement basis and sent directly to SCDOT. Other than the Governor’s certification, no further approval is necessary.   The Governor has formed the South Carolina Task Force on Accountability and Transparency, chaired by the state’s Comptroller General, to oversee and account for stimulus funds spent by state agencies.  Act 114, passed by the General Assembly in 2007, delegates the role of project selection and final approval to the SCDOT Commission. With ARRA, SCDOT did hear from members of the General Assembly, as mentioned above, with recommendations for projects to consider. However the Legislature did not have a role in project selection. Also as mentioned above, the General Assembly has assigned the role of oversight to another state office. 
South Dakota
SDDOT and the Transportation Commission identified projects. The Transportation Commission selected and approved projects based on SDDOT's recommendations.   A portion was appropriated by the Legislature to the General Operations budget and the majority was through a continuing appropriation by Transportation Commission through their normal process.   Oversight and monitoring will be provided by: Bureau of Finance and Management (Executive Branch) & Joint Appropriations Committee, Government Operations and Audit Committee (Legislative Branch).  SD law gives the Transportation Commission over the areas stated above. The commission must submit a budget to the Legislature annually for informational purposes only. SB50 amended FY09 General Appropriations Act to include FY09 stimulus money. The legislature has not really been involved; it is unclear whether they want to be.  
Tennessee
Tennessee’s DOT compiled a list of over 100 “shovel ready” projects. This list was published by the DOT prior to the passage of ARRA. State legislation was not involved. ARRA dollars received by local governments have to receive approval from TDOT. TDOT decided the projects to proceed with based on initial list; the General Assembly had no input in selection of projects. The Legislature has authority to acknowledge funding; the General Assembly cannot direct projects.  Legislature approved the funding—not the projects.  Each department within the state that is receiving ARRA funds has designated a point person who will coordinate all reporting requirements through the Governor’s office. ARRA reports are to be submitted to legislators regularly.   Legislative involvement is legally mandated, through the recognition of funding.  
Texas
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Utah
The normal, though accelerated, project selection process was used including the DOT, MPOs and final approval by the Transportation Commission. The approval of the projects was done by Utah Transportation Commission.  The funds came through the normal FHWA process, and once available in their financial system, it became available for states to use. It came as an ARRA appropriation.  The legislature is not involved in oversight or monitoring. Additional reporting requirements are being made through the Governor's office to U.S. Representative Oberstar, who chairs the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.  There is no mandate for the legislature to be involved, and the legislature has not been involved in any other way. The federal dollars being spent in the State of Utah for Transportation Projects is very small compared to the State Dollars Spent. The legislature just approved approximately $2.3 Billion dollars of State money. 
Vermont
For “stimulus 1” (ARRA funds that have to be obligated within 120 days), the state FY09 budget adjustment conference committee has agreed to a proposal which authorizes the DOT to fund projects from a list proposed by DOT and reviewed by the House Transportation Committee. The list was limited to projects which had funding in the FY09 transportation program. For “stimulus 2” (ARRA funds that have to be obligated by March 2010), the House FY10 transportation bill directs the DOT to speed up the construction of projects within the FY10 transportation program and to advance "candidate" projects which have no FY10 funding. The process requires the DOT to present the proposed list for approval by the legislature's joint fiscal committee. Both rounds of project selection rely upon the neutral project prioritization process which assigns a ranking to every project in the state program. The total authorized spending on the listed projects is approximately twice the size of the estimated amount of ARRA funds which has to be obligated within 120 days to give the DOT flexibility in assessing project readiness.  For “stimulus 2”, the House FY10 transportation bill (HB 438) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to obligate ARRA funds, and appropriates up to $60 million of ARRA funds in FY10 to fund the spending approved by the joint transportation oversight committee.  The House FY10 transportation bill (HB 438) requires the DOT submit its proposal regarding the obligation of ARRA funds and reallocation of replaced funds for FY09 and FY10 to the joint transportation oversight committee in July 2009. DOT must also report on the expenditure of ARRA funds to the joint transportation oversight committee at the committee's regular 2009 meetings.   Legislative committees have been involved by approving project lists, and the House FY10 transportation bill (HB 438) is directly involved with ARRA funds for transportation projects (e.g. by directing the DOT to obligate the “stimulus 2” ARRA funds to projects within the FY10 transportation program and by specifying how the DOT must report to the Legislature). 
Virginia
For Virginia, in general, the legislature required the Secretary of Transportation to submit a list of eligible projects, but the responsibility for selecting actual projects was left to Commonwealth Transportation Board. With the tight timeline for committing the funding and a part-time legislature that adjourned sine die in March, the idea was to treat these federal funds like other federal transportation funds and avoid the temptation to earmark projects or otherwise provide legislative prioritization. The Secretary was required through the 2009 Appropriations Act to provide the General Assembly with a comprehensive listing of projects that would be eligible for funding with state-designated stimulus funds prior to any commitments. The General Assembly did not specifically earmark any of the funds in the Act. Our general understanding was that ARRA timelines and shovel-ready requirements limited projects to those already in the STIP. For funding designated to urban areas, the appropriate MPO selected the projects with review for compliance with ARRA. The Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the final selection of projects. All possible projects were submitted to the General Assembly. The 120-day commitments were presented to the Senate Finance / Senate Transportation and House Appropriations / House Transportation Committees at the Reconvened Session (April 8, 2009).   Funds were appropriated through the use of a contingent apportionment of all categories of stimulus funds using the best available information at the time (the FFIS table provided through NCSL). Because of the uncertainty surrounding final amounts, the Legislature allowed the Director of the Department of Planning and Budget the authority to allocate funds as necessary. The apportionment table is a block for all ARRA funds; specific transportation projects were not identified.   Oversight and monitoring will be handled by the Virginia DOT, the Secretary of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, Virginia Stimulus Czar, Senate Finance and House Appropriations staff, and presentations to the Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability. Monitoring of all Virginia ARRA spending is being done through http://www.stimulus.virginia.gov   The Commonwealth Transportation Board is the legally responsible entity. Legislative involvement has taken place through monthly reporting to Senate Finance and Transportation committees and the House Appropriations and Transportation committees, and periodic reporting to Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability. 
Washington
The Legislature did appropriate the $341M in ARRA funds received as the state’s share of federal stimulus (but not the local share). The appropriations bill, ESHB 1978, also incorporated by reference a list of specific projects eligible to receive the appropriated ARRA funds, including a “Tier 2” list of projects that could receive ARRA funding should projects on the “Tier 1” list be unable to use the funds for any reason. Thus, the Legislature both appropriated the state portion of ARRA funds, and identified the specific projects eligible to receive those funds. This is consistent with recent legislative practice in appropriating state transportation dollars to specific projects identified on a project list incorporated by reference in the transportation budget legislation. The Legislature selected projects (see “project identification”).  The Legislature appropriated funds (see “project identification”).  NR  See “project identification.” 
West Virginia
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin Legislature passed 2009 Act 2 that, along with partially addressing a projected general fund deficit in the current fiscal year, mandated that the first $300,000,000 in highway stimulus funds be spent on a list of 47 state highway projects included in the Act. The projects were ones that the Wisconsin DOT had indicated could be accelerated if stimulus funding were made available. The Legislature, therefore, didn’t really have a direct role in choosing which projects to include in the list. Wisconsin DOT selected the projects on the project list, which was approved by the Wisconsin Legislature through 2009 Act 2.  Act 2 mandates that any use of stimulus funds (not just transportation stimulus) be either included in an appropriations bill introduced by the Governor or be approved by the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance.
The process set up in Act 2 is not very different, in principle, from the normal process for allocating federal funds. Our biennial budgets normally allocate anticipated federal aid among various state highway and local programs, although not on a project-by-project basis.  
NR  The legislature was involved by passing Act 2, which set up which projects would be funded and required stimulus funds to be either included in an appropriation bill introduced by the Governor or be approved by the Legislature's Joint Committee on Finance. 
Wyoming
NR NR  NR  NR  NR 

* Responses have been edited for length.
** NR: No response.