New Search
4. Schedule projects receiving significant outside revenues, such as HBRR and <br /> OTIA III funds. These projects typically have construction year commitments. <br /> 5. Schedule projects that significantly leverage County funds. This is a critical <br /> component to a project's overall priority. <br /> 6. Take note of which projects we have already invested significant time and public <br /> process involvement in. These projects are typically within the first two years of <br /> the program. <br /> 7. Use the project prioritization matrix to further balance expected revenues against <br /> expenses. Update all project costs. <br /> 8. List projects that cannot be funded, but still rank higher in priority, in the <br /> "Projects for Development" category. <br /> Prioritization Matrix <br /> <br /> As with the 06-10 CIP, this year's CIP used prioritization factors in identifying key merits <br /> <br /> for each potential project. The prioritization factors were used to compare the relative <br /> merit of individual projects. Each factor in which the proposed project would provide a <br /> benefit was marked with a plus or a double-plus with adouble-plus symbol <br /> indicating a strong benefit for that respective factor. These ratings are used to help <br /> identify the highest benefit projects for inclusion in the CIP. <br /> Attachment 1 shows the list of road projects and their average number of plus symbols <br /> based on staff evaluation. The projects that have been committed to the program, either <br /> through significant strides already completed or through leveraging of other projects or <br /> funding, are listed at the top of the spreadsheet and highlighted. The remaining projects <br /> are below this and sorted, highest to lowest, by the number of plus symbols they <br /> received by staff members. Projects that are unfunded are shown on the "Projects for <br /> Development" list. To help understand the reasoning behind the project ratings, the <br /> eleven prioritization factors are further explained in the attachment. ~ <br /> We did not show prioritization rankings for the numerous bridge replacement and repair <br /> projects in the proposed CIP. This is due to the fact that bridges are not nominated for <br /> repair or replacement unless they have a significant structural problem. In most of the <br /> cases in Lane County, the bridges that are being listed in the CIP are funded through <br /> OTIA III or HBRR sources. <br /> As previously mentioned, we did not have the ability to add modernization projects to j <br /> the last year of the CIP knowing that the Road Fund Reserve cannot fund them. The <br /> Board has directed draw down of the Road Fund Reserve over the past decade, and <br /> together with the uncertainty of the Federal reauthorization of timber receipt payments, <br /> this has forced us to revise our approach and look more intently on alternate sources of <br /> revenue than we have in the past. <br /> Some projects and programs have been cut back or eliminated, while others have been <br /> added. Of significance is the recommendation to scale back and re-think Lane County's <br /> role and limitations in the Delta/Beltline Interchange. We have been trying for many <br /> years to arrive at a solution in this area, but have been unsuccessful. As recent as <br /> 3 <br /> <br />