2009-05-13 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. Percent of other funding also applied to the project The first four criteria were evaluated on a scale of 0- I 0 by five scorers independently and their scores were averaged to arrive to a cumulative score for each criterion. The fifth criterion was evaluated on a scale of 0- I O. Projects were given a score based on statistically natural breaks for population density within one mile and some bicycle/pedestrian projects were given one or two extra points based on a review of travel generators that would use the facility. These scores were then adjusted down to a range of 0 to 7 instead of 0- I 0 since 7 was the largest cumulative score range among the criteria that were scored by all evaluators. This adjustment was made so that the density score did not receive an artificially high weight since its unadjusted range would have been larger than in the other criteria. The sixth criterion was evaluated by the State Aid representative and was evaluated on a scale of 0- I O. Since projects with Railroad, Historic and Right of Way impacts were already screened from the scoring, the projects were scored for project readiness based on the progress of the Environmental Documentation and Temporary Easements (TE)ILimited Use Permits (LUP). Environmental Documentation criterion was evaluated on a scale of 0-5. 0 points were awarded if the project documentation had not been started and 5 points if the documentation had been approved by the State Aid Office. Intermediate points were awarded if the document had been started based on the progress the Agency has made in the preparation/review process. Temporary easements (TE) and/or Limited Use Permits (LUP) criterion was evaluated on a scale of 0-5. 0 points were awarded ifTE or a LUP is required and the parcels have not been identified and 5 points were awarded if no TElLUP is required or the acquisition of the TE has been completed. Intermediate points were awarded if the parcels had been identified and negotiations had begun. The two categories were added together for a total score of 0-1 0 points. The highest score received for this criterion was 7 and the lowest was 2. For the seventh criterion, projects were given a score based on the percentage of other funding that was committed to the project on a scale of 0-10. For example, an applicant would receive a score of 2.5 ifit committed 25% of the total construction cost to be covered with funding other than ARRA. These scores were totaled and all projects were sorted in a ranked list. Funding Options Table 2 attached is the list of 3 I scored projects in rank order based on their total score. The region has only $7.5 million in ARRA funds that it can apply to fund projects in this list. Thc TAC Funding & Programming Committee can consider several options in selecting projects to receive ARRA TE funds. Funding Option One: Fund the highest ranking projects until $7.5 million is expended. This option results in the first nine projects selected for funding. (Table 3) Funding Option Two: Under the first option, two projects within the City of Minneapolis are funded. The TAB wanted to consider geographic equity in allocating ARRA funds. Option Two removes the second ranked Minneapolis-located project, the Bryant Avenue bridge, and funds the next ranked project, which is the Coon Rapids project. (Table 4) Funding Option Three: Select either of the first two options and select one or two projects that will not have funding committed but which may be added quickly to the program if a funded project cannot make the November 13 deadline. The main criteria for selecting these projects would be either if they are in the TIP already and should be getting ready for project authorization anyway or if the project is