12-6 - Information Item - Memorandum - SPOT 5.0 Local Input Point Process

Browse Search

NCDOT allows deviation from adopted and approved methodology provided it is documented. The MPO allows deviation only if any of the following occur: • A project costs more than the funding available in that category • A project will not be competitive within its Region or Division even with the application of Local Input Points • Coordination with the Division Engineer or a neighboring MPO or RPO deems a project should not receive points, or will receive points from another MPO, RPO, or Division • The DCHC MPO Board, based on a recommendation from the Technical Committee (TC), determines that a lower ranking project is of greater priority and therefore should be assigned points (or more points than assigned through application of the Methodology) • The DCHC MPO Board determines that a higher ranking project is of lesser priority and therefore should be assigned fewer, or no, points than assigned through application of the Methodology • The DCHC MPO Board determines that projects in another mode are of higher priority • The DCHC MPO Board determines that points should be awarded to a particular project to support geographic equity • Based on public input, the DCHC MPO Board decides to deviate from the project rankings Using the above process, the MPO Board will release the draft priority ranking and local input point allocation for public comment and hold a public hearing at an MPO Board meeting in accordance with the MPO Public Involvement Policy. The MPO Board will approve the final allocation based on the following: • The final score and list of initial projects using the process described above; • The likelihood of receiving funding through STI considering the amount of funding available within each Division or Region, historical funding levels for the mode, and the normalization limitations that NCDOT has adopted; • The number of eligible projects within the MPO within each funding mode, project type, category; • The priorities of the current MTP including the adopted distribution of funding between modes and the air quality horizon year of projects; • The effect that receiving funding for a project may have on the likelihood of other projects being funded in the Division or Region considering the limitations set by the STI legislation; • If the project is located within an area of overlapping Environmental Justice Communities of concern identified in the MPO’s 2014 Environmental Justice Report; • Geographic and jurisdictional balance • Coordination with the Division Engineers and neighboring MPOs and RPOs on the assignment of points; • Public input and support as evidenced through public comments submitted to the MPO, the MPO’s public hearing, public involvement efforts of local governments, and local referenda; • The MPO Board members’ knowledge of the urban area and the policies of their communities; and • Other factors as identified. If the MPO Board varies from the recommended allocation of points, MPO staff will document the rationale and will post the documentation on the MPO’s website. 3