Ohio DOT TRAC Process Alternatives for Revising the Scoring Process - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ohio DOT TRAC Process Alternatives for Revising the Scoring Process

EDR Group with Burns & McDonnell Burgess & Niple High Street Consulting

The purpose of the TRAC is to help make decisions on major statewide and regional transportation investments. The purpose of this study is to make sure that the factors the TRAC uses accurately represent the issues that are most important to Ohio’s economy.

We want to tip the scales in Ohio’s favor

Webcast and TRAC Day

Review

• What did we learn from stakeholders?
• What are other DOTs doing?

Proposals

• Possible changes to TRAC scoring

Listen

Your thoughts?

Current TRAC Scoring

Community and Economic Growth & Development Factors, 25% Transportation Factors, 55% Project Sponsor Investment Factors, 20%

Current Economic Factors

• Appropriate Land Use Measures

– up to 4 points

• Position Land for Redevelopment

– up to 6 points

• Return on Investment

– up to 10 points

• Economic Distress

– up to 5 points

Community and Economic Growth & Development Factors, 25%

Outreach to date

• Interviews with 11 individuals or groups of

individuals prior to kickoff

• 20+ attended kickoff meeting; 60+ on webinar
• 11 district/stakeholder group meetings around

the state (interviews with reps from D10)

• Phone meetings with industry groups
• Significant, across the board appreciation for
• utreach

What we heard

General Comments

• $12 Million is a high threshold – some projects are too

big for Jobs & Commerce, but not big enough for TRAC.

• Interest in making it easier to calculate your project’s

“chances” before investing in application.

• Consider giving more points for projects which use

existing infrastructure or other economic investments.

What we heard

• Stakeholders consider “jobs” enormously important and

think “jobs” should be added as a factor. Consider:

– Projects that create more jobs (multiplier effects) – High paying/high-value jobs

• Retaining existing jobs is as important as new jobs
• Consider giving more points for projects which would

increase jobs that are targeted by Jobs Ohio.

What we heard

• Local participation means more than just participating

in project cost. Points should be awarded for other investments in/near the project area.

• ODOT district/HQ staff is seen as very helpful.

Findings From DOT Survey

• Most states which responded consider economic

factors in scoring/prioritization

• Most of those states struggle with the complexity of

economic data and factors

• States use economic metrics to quantify transportation

performance outcomes

• None recognize land use/redevelopment in the way

TRAC does

Findings From DOT Survey

• Stakeholder feedback most important issue

considered in prioritization (vs issues like modal balance, political pressure, public official input)

• Stakeholder meetings primary mechanism for

gathering input

• TRAC has more experience with economic factors

than many DOTs

What we heard

Community Economic Growth & Development Factors Comments

• 1. Adopting Appropriate Land Use Measures

– Land Use factor doesn’t resonate. 2. Positioning Land for Redevelopment – Discussion of development vs. redevelopment.

What we heard

• 3. Economic Impact – Return on Investment (ROI)

– ROI is considered an important factor, but isn’t understood and frustrates stakeholders. It needs to be more transparent.

• 4. Considering Factors of Economic Distress

– “Economic Distress” should consider whether economic conditions would change if the project is constructed.

Proposed Scoring Changes

Based on what we heard from stakeholders and best practices from other states, the consultant team developed five specific proposed scoring changes

Specific Scoring Proposals

Changes to Existing Scoring Factors 1. ROI – Replace with broader jobs-based “Economic Performance” Score 2. Economic Distress – Scale “Economic Distress Relief” Score proportional to “Economic Performance” Score 3. Land Use and Redevelopment

– Combine into a composite “Local Investment” Score

New Scoring Factors 4. Assign points for projects that retain jobs 5. Assign points for Jobs Ohio Endorsement

What this means for TRAC scoring

FROM

• 10 Pts: ROI
• 6 Pts:

Redevelopment

• 4 Pts:

Land Use

• 5 Pts:

Economic Distress

25 possible points TO

• 8 Pts: Economic Performance
• 8 Pts: Local Investment

(combined)

• 5 Pts: Economic Distress

Relief

• 2 Pts: Job Retention (added)
• 2 Pts: Jobs Ohio (added)

Endorsement

25 possible points

Economic Performance Score

Proposal #1

Economic Performance Score

From To

Up to 10 points Assigned by model Up to 8 points based on:

– Jobs created – Simplified ROI

2 ways to assign points:

– Grade “on a curve” – how close a project falls to the maximum number

• f jobs, or

– Bracket approach – points based on which Job Creation and ROI bracket a project falls Specifies how points are assigned for both job creation and Gross State Product

Discussion

• 1. Thoughts on two part Economic Performance

score?

• 2. Thoughts about implementation options?
• a. “Grading on a curve”
• b. Fixed points by brackets

Scale Economic Distress Relief Score Relative to Performance Score

Proposal #2

Scale Distress Relief Relative to Performance Score

From

Up to 5 Points

Assigned independently of ROI or expected economic impacts. Score based on unemployment and poverty in project area relative to rest of Ohio.

To

Up to 5 points

Assigned in proportion to how many of the 8 possible performance score points a project gets. Score still based on unemployment and poverty, but points only count when project shows economic performance potential.

Shift from distress, to project potential to alleviate distress

Discussion

• 1. Thoughts on scaling distress points?
• 2. Other ways to relate economic distress points

to performance points?

• 3. Fairness issue?

Combine “Land Use” and “Redevelopment” into a “Local Investment” Score

Proposal #3

Combine “Land Use‘” and “Redevelopment” Scores into Single “Local Investment” Score

From

4 Points for “Land Use” and 6 Points for “Positioning Land for Redevelopment” Points based on zoning or local planning policies.

To

8 Points for using existing infrastructure or other economic investments Two ways to apply, based on either:

• Long-standing infrastructure

in place

• Recent investment

Shifts from zoning and redevelopment to leveraging investment in project area.

Two Ways to Apply

Existing Area

• “Build Out” Score Based on

% of Acres in the Project Area

– Served by local streets – Served by water & sewer – Have structures currently or previously used as businesses – Served by fixed route transit – Previously developed but currently vacant/unused

New Development Area

• Recent (in the last 5 years)
• r currently committed

investment in local non-project infrastructure.

– As a % of project budget – Points normalized to reflect this percentage

Application Requirements

Existing Area

• Provide documentation/

analysis of existing infrastructure in project area

– Inventory parcels/plats – Calculate developed % of project area acreage – Defensibly define “project impact area” – Demonstrate vacancy or need for redevelopment

New Development Area

• Provide documentation of

committed or recent outlays in the project area

– Project outlays used to satisfy the “local match” criterion are not counted – Outlays must be on new local infrastructure, services or amenities aimed at developing the area.

Discussion

1. Thoughts on Local Investment Score 2. How easy/hard would it be to obtain information about existing assets (by plat or parcel) within a project area? 3. Implementation options

– Is this too much work for applicants (especially in developed areas)? – What is an appropriate way to define a project impact area? – What would be the “ceiling” on % of land in the impact area would need to be vacant or subject to redevelopment?

Retention Points

Proposal #4

Discussion

• 1. How could you demonstrate that a project is

necessary to retain an existing center of employment?

• 2. How could this criterion be applied so it isn’t a

“rubber stamp”?

• 3. What would be a good “reality check” to see if a

project is really needed to retain an existing business?

JobsOhio Endorsement

Proposal #5

JobsOhio Endorsement

From No recognition of JobsOhio priorities or initiatives in TRAC scoring process. To 2 Points available if JobsOhio provides endorsement that project is an integral part of a larger JobsOhio economic development strategy or initiative.

Aligns with nine targeted industries identified by JobsOhio network.

Discussion

• 1. At what level in the JobsOhio organization

should TRAC applicants seek an endorsement to get points in TRAC scoring?

• 2. How would applicants go about obtaining such

an endorsement?

• 3. What might be appropriate criteria to qualify for

such an endorsement?

Net effects of proposed changes

• More objective scoring system
• More transparent process
• Takes into account industry best practices
• Capitalizes on other investments:

– JobsOhio linkage – Maximize Ohio’s overall return on past, present and current public investments.

TRAC Day Schedule Tuesday, January 29

9:00 – 10:30 a.m. 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.

Location 1 West Chester Township Hall 9113 Cincinnati-Dayton Road Building West Chester, OH 45069 Location 4 ODOT District 4 Office 2088 S. Arlington Road Akron, Ohio 44306 Location 2 ODOT District 11 Office 2201 Reiser Avenue New Philadelphia, OH 44663 Location 5 ODOT District 2 Office 317 East Poe Road Bowling Green, OH 43402 Location 3 ODOT District 7 Office HMA Conference Room 1001 Saint Mary’s Avenue Sidney, OH 45365 Location 6 ODOT Central Office Room 4A 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, OH 43223

Questions/Comments

Please contact:

• Chandler Duncan

EDR Project Manager cduncan@edrgroup.com

• Jim Gates

Ohio DOT TRAC Coordinator james.gates@dot.state.oh.us