Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
DRCOG TAC debates whether to tie regional share to a single RTP goal or keep process unchanged
Loading...
Summary
DRCOG staff presented two paths: retain the current regional share process with modest application tweaks or align regional share funding to one RTP investment priority using a tiered scoring and a possible two‑step application. TAC members asked for clarity on goals, tiers and timeline; staff will take direction to a board work session in early June.
Todd Cottrell, DRCOG program manager for Programming and Project Delivery, briefed the TAC on potential changes to the regional share process for the 2029–2032 TIP cycle.
Cottrell explained two staff‑recommended paths: (1) keep the regional share largely as is and make modest application question updates, deferring decisions on funding minimums/maximums and renaming the share for a later discussion; or (2) align the regional share to one of the RTP investment priorities using a tier system to define eligibility and add more targeted application questions, and to pilot a two‑step application process (letter of interest then full application).
"We did a lot of polling within the TIP subcommittees," Cottrell said, summarizing consensus that a "Tier 2" approach (a mid‑level set of refinements) would be a reasonable starting point if the committee wants to align to a goal. He said forums would still prescreen submittals and that staff would form subject matter panels to score submittals and recommend a ranked list to DRCOG.
TAC members raised concerns about defining a single goal, the potential for fragmenting limited regional share dollars across many priorities, and whether programmatic or location‑based eligibility would be preferred. Several members urged preserving the forum pre‑screening role and recommended staff return with clearer examples of what a goal and tiered questions would look like.
Chair Justin Schmitz said staff will bring the topic to a board work session in early June and return to TAC in late June/July with board direction. The conversation was framed as guidance rather than a binding action; no formal vote was taken.
