OUTBoard agenda 011718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Deviations from Methodology These recommended point assignments will be presented to the RTCC and RTAC for their review and approval. The RTCC retains the discretion to make recommendations to the RTAC regarding changes to the list. The RTAC has the final discretion regarding assignment of local points, and retains the flexibility to make changes to these point assignments if it is able to document a reason for doing so. These changes must be documented and made available to the public via the TARPO website. Cascading Projects TARPO will submit its Regional Impact local point assignments separately from its Division Needs local point assignments, and will be able to learn which projects are funded in the Regional Impact category before assigning points in the Division Needs category. As a result, if there are projects funded in the Regional Impact category that would otherwise be in line to receive Division Needs points as a result of this methodology, those Division Needs points will instead be assigned to the next - highest scoring eligible project that has not received points (subject to the rules requiring that at least two projects from each county receive points). This process will be clearly explained as part of the public outreach process, and the list of "next in line" projects that could potentially be affected by this rule will be presented at the same time the initial point assignment recommendations are presented. Point Sharing On projects that cross outside of the TARPO planning boundary, TARPO must coordinate with its neighboring organizations on the allocation of points. By right, TARPO may only assign the number of points equal to the percentage of the project that is located within the TARPO boundary —for example, TARPO could assign a project that was 48% located within its boundary only 48 points by right. However, TARPO will coordinate with its neighboring organizations to "share" points to ensure that these projects reach a point total of 100 points —in the example above, TARPO would share 52 points with its neighbors to ensure the project receives 100 points. In the event that point sharing is not necessary on these projects, either because the neighboring organization already plans to assign its full amount of points for the project or because the neighboring organization rejects TARPO's offer to share points, TARPO will only assign the points for the portion within its boundary and the remaining points will be allocated to the next - highest scoring project on the project list that did not already receive full points. z'l ri c i 111 t,l 11 11 it C 0 t,u lk. °ezi l � .t M z'l 1 i " "I'll 111 :